Why deny them a platform?

[MarxistInTraining]

We all hate Facists, however that does not give us a right to silence them. Thats facism inself is it not? They should be herd and exposed for the scum they are. And if thats what they people want that should be what the people get. You can't have a quasi-democracy, if people are taken in by it then its there own falut. Groups like EDL & the BNP should be left to embaress themsselfs because as it stand its us the left who are the one being show own up. We preach fairness and equality between people and classes and then silence a small group of people.

/rant

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fascists and NAZIs don't make public speeches for the sake of the exchange of ideas or idle discussion and debate. Typically they make speeches and have rallies in order to "put people in their place" and intimidate the working class. Recently in Los Angeles, neo-nazis from Detroit were allowed to make a speech advocating the forced re-location of Latino immigrants. Why would Detroit NAZIs want to come to LA for this speech? Were they hoping to attract people Los Angelenos to their cause? Would it be worth it to get a devotee who lived clear across the country? No, they went to LA because there is a large Latino population.

In the 80s and 90s neo-Nazis also famously tried to have marches through a Jewish enclave in the US.

It is not simply a case of "bad ideas" with NAZIs and fascists, they want to intimidate workers and that is why they should be opposed and shouted-down whenever they show up.

Also, there is no such thing as real free-speech in the abstract. No one would be able to make a speech advocating the rape of a child without being shouted down... yet people always seem to want to allow fascists to be able to freely advocate genocide or forced relocation of minorities or the elimination of all our rights? A child being raped, while awful, is objectively not as horrible as what the fascists advocate.

[ed miliband]

I thought you were going to be talking about the Labour Party before I read the rest of your post.

[Che a chara]

I sometimes kind of agree that they should have the right to express their views publicly, but the downside to that is that they get the opportunity to come across as respectable and get to camouflage their true ideology. Even the smallest hints of racism/fascism in their politics and the scaremongering that goes with it has the potential to stir up hatred and scapegoating.

What is also apparent as of late is the number of working class people that the BNP and EDL has reached out to. this causes further divide and alienation within our class.

It's true that they can easily expose themselves for the vermin that they are, but this gives them the chance to corrupt people's minds with their filth.

At the end of the day, what they are preaching is hate, division and a hierarchy of who should be classed as a citizen.

So overall, NO PLATFORM FOR FASCISTS.

[RGacky3]

Also, there is no such thing as real free-speech in the abstract. No one would be able to make a speech advocating the rape of a child without being shouted down... yet people always seem to want to allow fascists to be able to freely advocate genocide or forced relocation of minorities or the elimination of all our rights? A child being raped, while awful, is objectively not as horrible as what the fascists advocate.

I agree, but shouting down someone is different from legislating them silent.


but the downside to that is that they get the opportunity to come across as respectable and get to camouflage their true ideology. Even the smallest hints of racism/fascism in their politics and the scaremongering that goes with it has the potential to stir up hatred and scapegoating.

So what? people are mostly intelligent, they'll see through that. For free speach to be free it has to be free universally, but that does'nt mean you don't humiliate and degrade those with dispicibal views, I think they should be treated with the respect they deserve (none), but I don't believe anyone should have the power to limit someones speach by threat of law.


but this gives them the chance to corrupt people's minds with their filth.



Who gets to decide that? Thats the point.

[#FF0000]

We all hate Facists, however that does not give us a right to silence them. Thats facism inself is it not?

No.

But yeah I see what you're getting at. Still I don't see a problem with "no platform" policies as long as they're being enforced by people and groups unrelated to the state. Like Gacky said there's a difference between shouting people down and silencing them through legislation.

[Yearzero]

So silence fascists because there evil but support Marxism which killed more? Got it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." - Rosa Luxemburg

This is a quote I agree with, and stick with wholeheartedly.

However, when does their dissent begin to impede on the freedoms of others? (Some make the points of worker intimidation -- I agree with them that this is impeding on other's freedom)

They should be allowed to speak, publish, etc etc so long as they are not impeding on the freedom of others.

It is the responsibility of the anti-fascist community to rebuke and fight against them. If they rally 1000 fascists, we rally 10 000 anti-fascists. If they publish 1 book, we publish 10 against it.

Violence is merely suppression of Fascism, it does not eliminate it. It creates martyrs within fascism causing a stronger support.

Only through education can we hope to eliminate fascist thought and ideology.

[#FF0000]

So silence fascists because there evil but support Marxism which killed more? Got it.

Oh great. This post again. Try again with more substance please. One-liners and no content = infraction.

Anyway, for content, I don't think very much of modern anti-fascism. In most cases. Strikes me as kids doing kid things (streetfighting!) except with red flags and swastikas. It isn't 1930 anymore and stupid racists saying stupid racist things are far less important and damaging than white privilege the more subtle racism prevalent in society today.

[Nuvem]

So let me get this straight. You joined RevLeft, and your VERY FIRST POST...


...Is defending Fascists?

[#FF0000]

So let me get this straight. You joined RevLeft, and your VERY FIRST POST...


...Is defending Fascists?

His first posts were troll posts about Pol Pot.

Keep it on topic

[Imposter Marxist]

Fascist ideology promotes racial and cultural violence, based on false claims. They want the Proletariat to bow down to not only the Bourgeoisie, but make the State their new God. They are a terrible ideology enemy that preech everything we are against. If they came to power to they would line us up, and they have. We should grant those monsters no mercy. They are our opponents, sir. :mad:

[#FF0000]

Fascist ideology promotes racial and cultural violence, based on false claims. They want the Proletariat to bow down to not only the Bourgeoisie, but make the State their new God. They are a terrible ideology enemy that preech everything we are against. If they came to power to they would line us up, and they have. We should grant those monsters no mercy. They are our opponents, sir. :mad:

So is every non-fascist party, though. Honestly, Jimmie Higgins is the only person to post a decent defense of anti-fascism so far, I think. Of course fascists advocate racialist, nativist, hyper-nationalist policies, but so do regular old liberals and conservatives, in their own ways and when it suits them.

[Bud Struggle]

It actually wouldn't be bad if Fascist wanted to discuss economic theory or politics--but I really don't want to read threads about their problems with "Jews" and "race mixing" and all of their other idiotic hate issues. :)

[this is an invasion]

I agree, but shouting down someone is different from legislating them silent. I don't think anyone is talking about legislation to keep fascists quiet. Anyone who does is a moron due to the political implications of legally silencing one political group.

[Dimentio]

We all hate Facists, however that does not give us a right to silence them. Thats facism inself is it not? They should be herd and exposed for the scum they are. And if thats what they people want that should be what the people get. You can't have a quasi-democracy, if people are taken in by it then its there own falut. Groups like EDL & the BNP should be left to embaress themsselfs because as it stand its us the left who are the one being show own up. We preach fairness and equality between people and classes and then silence a small group of people.

/rant

No, fascism isn't about silencing people. Fascism is about trying to create national or racial or religious unity between the entire people and some sort of nefarious and vague foreign or internal threat.

As for no platform today. There is probably no risk that real fascists would gain power. I believe that if it happened tomorrow that a party like the National Front would win power in the UK, the queen would probably refuse them to form a government and the military and the police would take over.

[Bud Struggle]

the queen would probably refuse them to form a government and the military and the police would take over.

That's a good reason to have a Queen, though. :D

[Nuvem]

I don't think anyone is talking about legislation to keep fascists quiet. Anyone who does is a moron due to the political implications of legally silencing one political group.

Total freedom of speech for all groups is a nice ideal, but when you come down to bare-bone pragmatism it is not acceptable to allow fascists any sort of public or private method of spreading their ideas. Their ideas are like a sick cancer that grows in the brain of the young and confused. They turn innocent young people into ravenous, racist, hateful individuals bent on spewing their hatred and creating a totalitarian, uniracial state.

I don't respect a fascist's right to live, let alone speak freely.

[#FF0000]

Total freedom of speech for all groups is a nice ideal, but when you come down to bare-bone pragmatism it is not acceptable to allow fascists any sort of public or private method of spreading their ideas. Their ideas are like a sick cancer that grows in the brain of the young and confused. They turn innocent young people into ravenous, racist, hateful individuals bent on spewing their hatred and creating a totalitarian, uniracial state.

I don't respect a fascist's right to live, let alone speak freely.

So you don't see the political implications of allowing the state to silence a group?

[Che a chara]

So silence fascists because there evil but support Marxism which killed more? Got it.

Well what do fascists have to offer society ? What can they preach that will progress and enhance civilization and humanity ?

I don't think censoring them is right, but just don't be giving them air time for the sake of 'all-inclusiveness' or political correctness.

[this is an invasion]

Total freedom of speech for all groups is a nice ideal, but when you come down to bare-bone pragmatism it is not acceptable to allow fascists any sort of public or private method of spreading their ideas. Their ideas are like a sick cancer that grows in the brain of the young and confused. They turn innocent young people into ravenous, racist, hateful individuals bent on spewing their hatred and creating a totalitarian, uniracial state.

I don't respect a fascist's right to live, let alone speak freely.

Duh. What I'm saying is that the idea of "no platfrom" must come from working class communities, and not the state.

[Nuvem]

So you don't see the political implications of allowing the state to silence a group?

I do. I consider it an ideologically unfortunate act which is made necessary by the methods of Fascists. The Bourgeoisie can spout its bullshit all it wants, but I have no love for the idea of allowing fascists to run wild in a Left society. Look at Russia, look at Georgia. Ever since fascists stopped being repressed by the government, they've been gaining popular support, becoming increasingly violent and even snaking their way into the government.

I am pragmatic before I am idealistic. Fascists are not a problem which can be approached from an ultra-left idealistic standpoint; you have to take a hardline approach and never allow them to make even the smallest handhold in society.


As for your post above, this is an invasion, I consider that to be an eventuality that must evolve over time as people embrace a left state of mind, not something that can be implemented here, now, immediately. In the short term it must be enforced by law and force before the people come to the general conclusion on their own grounds that fascists cannot be tolerated.

[Che a chara]

So what? people are mostly intelligent, they'll see through that. For free speach to be free it has to be free universally, but that does'nt mean you don't humiliate and degrade those with dispicibal views, I think they should be treated with the respect they deserve (none), but I don't believe anyone should have the power to limit someones speach by threat of law.


Who gets to decide that? Thats the point.

I'm not saying that they are stupid, but you can see how many disfranchised working class youths have attached themselves to the likes of the BNP and EDL.

For one, they are frustrated at the lack of employment and are led to believe from the BNP and other fascist organisations that ethnic-minorities are taking all the jobs because the mainstream parties are having trouble at finding a solution to many of the problems on the ground, not just jobs.

Should we allow the working class to be corrupted or led astray ? This is why a vanguard is essential.

[Bud Struggle]

Well what do fascists have to offer society ?

Well, if you let them post--you'd find out. :tongue_smilie:

[Sam_b]

Also, there is no such thing as real free-speech in the abstract. No one would be able to make a speech advocating the rape of a child without being shouted down... yet people always seem to want to allow fascists to be able to freely advocate genocide or forced relocation of minorities or the elimination of all our rights? A child being raped, while awful, is objectively not as horrible as what the fascists advocate.

This is a good point, but I think it can goes further than this. The idea of 'free speech' in itself has always been one to be enjoyed and talked by the ruling class. Go into your work the next day and tell your boss what you really think of him. There is no such thing as free speech in the slightest for the class.

I think what OP is suggesting is that of a complete simplicity - that any organisation, individual or group who has opinions that are against us will be immediately silenced under the guise of 'no platform', and the counter to this is of course 'freedom of speech'. This is not the case. While the Conservatives advocate what is essentially a racist party platform, we don't deny their right to propogise or epouse their views. These parties to an extent, bourgeois or not, believe in the concept of some sort of demcratic function. They do not go through immigrant neighbourhoods and call for people to 'go home'. They do not want our friends and comrades rounded up and put in camps.

We should not allow the little benefits we get of 'freedom of speech' in this so-called democracy to those who want to destroy democracy in favour of a fascist order. This is not used by fascists to win people over as much as it is to try and show strength, and to intimidate workers. No-platform, in essence, is a showing of working class strength against this.

[#FF0000]

I am pragmatic before I am idealistic. Fascists are not a problem which can be approached from an ultra-left idealistic standpoint; you have to take a hardline approach and never allow them to make even the smallest handhold in society.

So am I, which is why I think your idea is hugely counter-productive. Two great angles to play for support and sympathy are 1) the "oppressed opposition" card and 2) the lesser of two evils. If Fascists are an actual threat, then go ahead. But if there's just some stupid backwater militias springing up, then going out against them in force looks stupid and aggressive.

[this is an invasion]

I do. I consider it an ideologically unfortunate act which is made necessary by the methods of Fascists. The Bourgeoisie can spout its bullshit all it wants, but I have no love for the idea of allowing fascists to run wild in a Left society. Look at Russia, look at Georgia. Ever since fascists stopped being repressed by the government, they've been gaining popular support, becoming increasingly violent and even snaking their way into the government.

I am pragmatic before I am idealistic. Fascists are not a problem which can be approached from an ultra-left idealistic standpoint; you have to take a hardline approach and never allow them to make even the smallest handhold in society.


As for your post above, this is an invasion, I consider that to be an eventuality that must evolve over time as people embrace a left state of mind, not something that can be implemented here, now, immediately. In the short term it must be enforced by law and force before the people come to the general conclusion on their own grounds that fascists cannot be tolerated.

This is the problem with political anti-fascism. As soon as you make it a political thing, you leave the realm of revolutionary politics.

Not to mention that if there is a precedent for a state to legally censor one group for its politics, then there is nothing stopping the state from coming after communists and anarchists. Sorry, but anyone who wants to give the bourgeoisie that sort of power is not on my team.

[Nuvem]

This is the problem with political anti-fascism. As soon as you make it a political thing, you leave the realm of revolutionary politics.

Not to mention that if there is a precedent for a state to legally censor one group for its politics, then there is nothing stopping the state from coming after communists and anarchists. Sorry, but anyone who wants to give the bourgeoisie that sort of power is not on my team.

I don't want to give the bourgeoisie that kind of power. I'm talking from the standpoint of within a Left society (communist, socialist) wherein the bourgeoisie is already dethroned. What are we to do with fascists in the immediate term if there is no mandate made by a communist-operated or socialist-operated state? Leave their fate to the judgment of the masses with no particular judicial or legislative direction? Can the people all be trusted to take that sort of initiative themselves? Most Americans will speak out against fascism all day, until they are actually faced with it. No bourgeois Americans stand up against the fascist marches in their cities that occur from time to time.

Being a Democratic Socialist, I personally believe in the necessity of the state as an apparatus for the functioning of society, so my viewpoints will inevitably be parallel to those of the ultra-left (left communists, council communists, anarchists of any persuasion). I take issue with the way in which the state is run under bourgeois society, I take issue with exploitation, oppression, capitalism, fascism and authoritarianism. I don't take issue with denying fascists a platform through legal action.

Perhaps this seems callous or bull-headed, but in the face of an enemy which seeks to deify the state and withdraw all rights, personal freedoms and individuality, I do not choose to give any concessions or take any chances. Legal action was enough to drive fascists deep, deep underground in the Soviet Union to the point that they were utterly ineffective, and it can and will work again. Only once they embraced social democracy and an "open and free society" did fascists gain the right to freedoms of open speech, press and organization.

Now there are Nazbols in the Duma. Public opinion isn't enough to stop them; in many places, it's bringing them to power.

[this is an invasion]

I don't want to give the bourgeoisie that kind of power. I'm talking from the standpoint of within a Left society (communist, socialist) wherein the bourgeoisie is already dethroned. What are we to do with fascists in the immediate term if there is no mandate made by a communist-operated or socialist-operated state? Leave their fate to the judgment of the masses with no particular judicial or legislative direction? Can the people all be trusted to take that sort of initiative themselves? Most Americans will speak out against fascism all day, until they are actually faced with it. No bourgeois Americans stand up against the fascist marches in their cities that occur from time to time.

Being a Democratic Socialist, I personally believe in the necessity of the state as an apparatus for the functioning of society, so my viewpoints will inevitably be parallel to those of the ultra-left (left communists, council communists, anarchists of any persuasion). I take issue with the way in which the state is run under bourgeois society, I take issue with exploitation, oppression, capitalism, fascism and authoritarianism. I don't take issue with denying fascists a platform through legal action.

Perhaps this seems callous or bull-headed, but in the face of an enemy which seeks to deify the state and withdraw all rights, personal freedoms and individuality, I do not choose to give any concessions or take any chances. Legal action was enough to drive fascists deep, deep underground in the Soviet Union to the point that they were utterly ineffective, and it can and will work again. Only once they embraced social democracy and an "open and free society" did fascists gain the right to freedoms of open speech, press and organization.

Now there are Nazbols in the Duma. Public opinion isn't enough to stop them; in many places, it's bringing them to power.
So you live in hypothetical land? We do not live in a world with a "socialist state." We have to deal with fascists in the situations we are given.

[Nuvem]

So you live in hypothetical land? We do not live in a world with a "socialist state." We have to deal with fascists in the situations we are given.

We presently live under the thumb of bourgeois democracy. We all know that they wont' do anything about fascists; they do nothing to stop the Klan, the Aryan Nation, the marchers and the fascist rallies here in America or anywhere else. In Italy they're even giving a Blackshirt-like group the right to patrol cities and report crimes. Russia has the biggest fascist population in the world, and the government is doing nothing to stop them despite their acts of terrorism and their blatant beating and killing of minorities in the streets.

Given that the bourgeoisie clearly won't act upon these situations and that we're dealing with the possibility/hypothetical situation of legislation against fascist rights to expression, yes, I use a hypothetical situation. Worker communes working against fascist expression are also currently a hypothetical. Here on revleft, virtually everything we say is hypothetical except for when we speak about history or the few Left governments remaining in the world.

If you want to get into the realm of current status and condemn all hypothetical situations, my personal recommendation for dealing with fascists is assassination, sabotage, counter-demonstration, character defacement and the circulation of anti-fascist propaganda.

[Bud Struggle]

We presently live under the thumb of bourgeois democracy. We all know that they wont' do anything about fascists; they do nothing to stop the Klan, the Aryan Nation, the marchers and the fascist rallies here in America or anywhere else. In Italy they're even giving a Blackshirt-like group the right to patrol cities and report crimes. Russia has the biggest fascist population in the world, and the government is doing nothing to stop them despite their acts of terrorism and their blatant beating and killing of minorities in the streets.

Given that the bourgeoisie clearly won't act upon these situations and that we're dealing with the possibility/hypothetical situation of legislation against fascist rights to expression, yes, I use a hypothetical situation. Worker communes working against fascist expression are also currently a hypothetical. Here on revleft, virtually everything we say is hypothetical except for when we speak about history or the few Left governments remaining in the world.


The Bourgoisie also do nothing to stop Communists. They also do nothing to stop Anarchists. They also do nothing to stop RevLeft.

When it comes down to it--they are pretty even handed in their general apathy. And maybe it's better that way.

[Nuvem]

The Bourgoisie also do nothing to stop Communists. They also do nothing to stop Anarchists. They also do nothing to stop RevLeft.

When it comes down to it--they are pretty even handed in their general apathy. And maybe it's better that way.

If only it were so. Both Red Scares are pretty solid evidence against that, as well as the current "Left-phobia" going across the USA. The mere idea that our president could be a "Socialist" (clearly, he's not) is enough to get many people riled up, some (Tea Party) to the point of anti-Left demonstrations and propaganda. In the EU, there is talk of banning the display of the hammer and sickle. In Poland, it already is banned. Yet the Swastika flies freely everywhere except in Germany and Austria.
Oddly enough, the bourgeoisie actually does much more to defame and repress Leftists than they do fascists and nationalists.

[Bud Struggle]

If only it were so. Both Red Scares are pretty solid evidence against that, as well as the current "Left-phobia" going across the USA. The mere idea that our president could be a "Socialist" (clearly, he's not) is enough to get many people riled up, some (Tea Party) to the point of anti-Left demonstrations and propaganda. In the EU, there is talk of banning the display of the hammer and sickle. In Poland, it already is banned. Yet the Swastika flies freely everywhere except in Germany and Austria.
Oddly enough, the bourgeoisie actually does much more to defame and repress Leftists than they do fascists and nationalists.

I think you are over thinking this.

[Imposter Marxist]

The OP never specified that he meant a platform now, he could have meant in a Left society.

The Bourgeoisie doesn't stop Leftism? I bet I can find a few articles of spying on Communist/Socialist parties, CIA attacks on Marxists in various ways, the banning of Leftist symbols and etc.

The media makes lies about what we really believe, and think, but they hardly distort Fascist ideology (Because it's vile in reality).

[Imposter Marxist]

I think you are over thinking this.

Aaaaaaaaand -that- is why you're restricted. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

The Bourgeoisie doesn't stop Leftism? I really don't think they care much about Leftism one way of another.


I bet I can find a few articles of spying on Communist/Socialist parties, CIA attacks on Marxists in various ways, the banning of Leftist symbols and etc. Where (in the USA) are Leftist symbols banned? Wear all the Che Tee shirts you want.


The media makes lies about what we really believe, and think, but they hardly distort Fascist ideology (Because it's vile in reality). For the media Leftist means Stalin--Fascist mean Hitler. The left has just as much to overcome with their image as the right does with theirs.

Spend some time on RevLeft and just see how many Stalinsts are posting here--as long as they are considered part of Communist culture, it is going to be a hard sell.

[Nuvem]

The symbolism isn't banned any more, now that they don't see Communism as a threat. Back in the 20s and the 50s it was; in the 1920s South Dakota even changed its flag because it was red with a white star in the center (they thought it looked too Commy). Back then you could be brought before a court for having supposed links to Leftist parties and even jailed or blacklisted; it happened all the time. They don't do it anymore because they don't perceive Communism or Socialist as having any potential in the world. If it came to the forefront in a major country, they would do precisely the same thing all over again.

They've never banned fascist symbolism or fascist party activity. Thousands of proud Americans happily waved around swastikas during their rallies even during World War II, nationalist and fascist parties in the USA openly supported Hitler's Germany. There was never a "fascist scare" here in America, there was never panic or mass arrest caused by fear of fascism taking power. They came after the Reds, and still do in smaller ways. The size of their reaction is proportional to the success of the world revolution.

[Imposter Marxist]

I really don't think they care much about Leftism one way of another.

Where (in the USA) are Leftist symbols banned? Wear all the Che Tee shirts you want.

For the media Leftist means Stalin--Fascist mean Hitler. The left has just as much to overcome with their image as the right does with theirs.

Spend some time on RevLeft and just see how many Stalinsts are posting here--as long as they are considered part of Communist culture, it is going to be a hard sell.

They...don't care about Leftism? What about the last 100 years!? They've trained death squads to kill us, they've assasinated left leaders (Reportedly, 600+ attempts have been made to kill Fidel Castro, they rounded up and murdered Che, they took a bunch of gusano's, trained them, gave them guns, and sent them into Cuba. They aided a Rightwing military coup against he DEMOCRATICALLY elected Marxist Salvador Allende. They are STILL in Columbia fighting FARC, they invaded Vietnam to stop the Revolutionaries from overthrowing their opressors!), they've repressed workers, they've banned our symbols. Sure not in the United States (Not legally) but its alienating and depending on where you are, descriminated against! Even so, the United States isn't the entire world, you know. Why would you think I meant JUST the US?

For the media, leftist means democract :rolleyes:, COMMUNIST means Stalin.

[Decolonize The Left]

We all hate Facists, however that does not give us a right to silence them. Thats facism inself is it not? They should be herd and exposed for the scum they are. And if thats what they people want that should be what the people get. You can't have a quasi-democracy, if people are taken in by it then its there own falut. Groups like EDL & the BNP should be left to embaress themsselfs because as it stand its us the left who are the one being show own up. We preach fairness and equality between people and classes and then silence a small group of people.

/rant

It seems to me that you may not be very clear on the realities of fascism. Fascism is based on nationalism (which generally involves racism, homophobia, and sexism), discrimination, economic centrism, and the direction of internal tensions towards an 'other,' usually another cultural group who is decried as 'stealing the authenticity of the 'true' race.'

Given these very simple and well-documented facts about the philosophy of fascism, there is very little room for discussion, let alone debate. Almost as a rule, fascists sit to the far right of the political spectrum and heavily in the authoritarian area of the economic spectrum. It is very difficult to 'reason' with someone who thinks that a group of people is superior to another.

Think of religious fanatics of all colors. There is no reasoning with faith - quite simply because faith is, by definition, outside of reason. It denies reason. Likewise, fascism is also anti-rational. There is no space for a dialogue.

Hence the no-platform stance for fascists. In the case of this forum, it's quite simple: this is a place for revolutionary leftists to discuss revolutionary leftism. If you want to talk fascism, you're free to peruse scumfront at your leisure. No one is stopping you. In the case of our political realities, I support the no-platform position re: fascism only in regards to political gatherings, protests, marches, etc... One on one, I'm happy to talk things over. In a group, it simply won't happen. Mob mentality inevitably overcomes an individual's desire to talk things through.

In short, the no-platform position towards fascism is relative to the situation, but is rooted in historical relevance and reason.

- August

[Dimentio]

I do. I consider it an ideologically unfortunate act which is made necessary by the methods of Fascists. The Bourgeoisie can spout its bullshit all it wants, but I have no love for the idea of allowing fascists to run wild in a Left society. Look at Russia, look at Georgia. Ever since fascists stopped being repressed by the government, they've been gaining popular support, becoming increasingly violent and even snaking their way into the government.

I am pragmatic before I am idealistic. Fascists are not a problem which can be approached from an ultra-left idealistic standpoint; you have to take a hardline approach and never allow them to make even the smallest handhold in society.


As for your post above, this is an invasion, I consider that to be an eventuality that must evolve over time as people embrace a left state of mind, not something that can be implemented here, now, immediately. In the short term it must be enforced by law and force before the people come to the general conclusion on their own grounds that fascists cannot be tolerated.

The problem with banning them in a society controlled by a bourgeois state is that it would give the state the power to ban political organisations.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If fascists ever came to power the best thing most revolutionary leftists could expect would be a bullet to the head and a shallow grave, as made evident by past regimes in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Germany. So I don't lose much sleep over their right to spew hatred being violated.

Luckily fascism (as in classic "old religion" fascism) is essentially a dead ideology in most of the world; unfortunately we still have to deal with various racist and homophobic groups, but like other posters have said, it's important that resistance to these groups forms organically, rather than having them simply face censure from the state.

[Nuvem]

The problem with banning them in a society controlled by a bourgeois state is that it would give the state the power to ban political organisations.

I've already addressed this.

[#FF0000]

I've already addressed this.

Yeah but even in a socialist society, giving something more attention than it apparently deserves looks stupid.

[Bud Struggle]

They...don't care about Leftism? What about the last 100 years!? They've trained death squads to kill us, they've assasinated left leaders (Reportedly, 600+ attempts have been made to kill Fidel Castro, they rounded up and murdered Che, they took a bunch of gusano's, trained them, gave them guns, and sent them into Cuba. They aided a Rightwing military coup against he DEMOCRATICALLY elected Marxist Salvador Allende. They are STILL in Columbia fighting FARC, they invaded Vietnam to stop the Revolutionaries from overthrowing their opressors!), they've repressed workers, they've banned our symbols. Sure not in the United States (Not legally) but its alienating and depending on where you are, descriminated against! Even so, the United States isn't the entire world, you know. Why would you think I meant JUST the US?

For the media, leftist means democract :rolleyes:, COMMUNIST means Stalin.

Lots of yesterday's news and FARC. Seriously? Communism is fed in to the same old stereotype and and the Bourgeoise are beating it down with the same old hammer.

Time to let go of the past and put a new face on the old message. ;)

[9]

"No Platforming" right wing groups is ridiculous, but not because of some Enlightenment nonsense like "freedom of speech", which is necessarily bullshit under capitalism anyway. It is ridiculous because it is a defense of liberal democratic capitalism. Why should marginal far right groups be regarded as a greater threat than the parties which tend to actually be in power, which tend to actually be managing the capitalist state? Why don't antifascists in the UK start "no platforming" Labour and the Tories? This morning I was reading about this plan for a "radical overhaul" of the NHS, why does that get a platform? Why is that more acceptable and less threatening than some drunken English nationalist "football hooligans" pissing on Westminster Abbey or some far-right party that couldn't even manage 2% of the vote in the General Election?
Scaremongering about the impending threat of marginal far right groups (which are often presented as the newest link in the chain of ETERNAL NAZISM!!1) while the bourgeoisie is attacking the working class left and right is as clear a defense of the ruling class as any.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is ridiculous because it is a defense of liberal democratic capitalism. Why should marginal far right groups be regarded as a greater threat than the parties which tend to actually be in power, which tend to actually be managing the capitalist state?First of all because far-right groups, if made more acceptable, are intimating to parts of the working class, like immigrants and ethnic minorities. Also the far-right can provide space for the "bourgeois parties" to move to the right. In the US, while it is the Democrats and Republicans who are passing anti-immigrant legislation, it is the Minutmen and other quazi-fascist groups that have allowed them the cover to do this. Just as, conversly, the 100,000s of immigrants who marched in defense of their rights, made the bourgeois parties have to stop their attacks (the Sensenbrenner Bill specifically).

[Nolan]

So silence fascists because there evil but support Marxism

Yup.


which killed more?

Fascism.


Got it.

Good.

[NGNM85]

Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but there are really only two positions on freedom of speech, either you support it for speech you find personally objectionable, or you take the authoritarian position. It's that simple.

[Sam_b]

No it isn't. Have you read this thread?

[Nolan]

Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but there are really only two positions on freedom of speech, either you support it for speech you find personally objectionable, or you take the authoritarian position. It's that simple.

Someone is colorblind.

[NGNM85]

No it isn't. Have you read this thread?

I've read most of it, I'm a little disheartened at how popular authoritarian attitudes are, but I'm not surprised. Yes, it is still that simple, because those are the only fundamental positions. You can exercise them in various ways, but ultimately it's a yes or no question. If you only support the 'right' to express ideas you agree with, you're absolutely opposed to free expression. That's what 'free speech' means.

[Decolonize The Left]

I've read most of it, I'm a little disheartened at how popular authoritarian attitudes are, but I'm not surprised. Yes, it is still that simple, because those are the only fundamental positions. You can exercise them in various ways, but ultimately it's a yes or no question. If you only support the 'right' to express ideas you agree with, you're absolutely opposed to free expression. That's what 'free speech' means.

Unfortunately, this isn't true at all. There are no fundamental positions, everything is relative to context and condition. Political positions only exist within material conditions, which only exist within the framing of such.

Your black-and-white, all-or-nothing, absolute-yes-or-no, framing of this situation is only cornering your own argument. It leaves you with no avenues to debate, and as such you miss out on the importance of this discussion.

- August

[NGNM85]

Unfortunately, this isn't true at all. There are no fundamental positions, everything is relative to context and condition. Political positions only exist within material conditions, which only exist within the framing of such.

Your black-and-white, all-or-nothing, absolute-yes-or-no, framing of this situation is only cornering your own argument. It leaves you with no avenues to debate, and as such you miss out on the importance of this discussion.

- August

This is absolutely ridiculous. All statements on this thread can be devided into one of these two categories. Every single one. In fact it is logically impossible not to take one position or the other, besides taking no position at all. (If you don't believe me just try it.) You can oppose free speech to varying degrees, a lot of the discussion here has been exactly how to stamp out, or prevent free speech. That there is a spectrum of opinion on tactics does not negate the fact that they all share the same core principle. Opposition to free speech is inherently authoritarian, which I find objectionable, as an Anarchist.

[9]

First of all because far-right groups, if made more acceptable, are intimating to parts of the working class, like immigrants and ethnic minorities. Also the far-right can provide space for the "bourgeois parties" to move to the right. In the US, while it is the Democrats and Republicans who are passing anti-immigrant legislation, it is the Minutmen and other quazi-fascist groups that have allowed them the cover to do this.

Well I'd suggest that the US police force with its nearly one million personnel, or US Customs and Border Protection with over 56,500 border patrol agents, or US Immigration and Customs Enforcement with its approx. 20,000 personnel, plays a much more central role in intimidating immigrants and ethnic minorities in the US than any far right American fringe group (i.e. what people around here call "fascists") could dream of. That isn't to say we should make excuses for rightwing bigots, but to present rightwing bigots 'pushing on the ruling class' as the cause of racism and xenophobia, or as a greater/more immediate threat to the working class than the capitalist class (and its state) itself, I just find completely inexcusable.

[#FF0000]

This is absolutely ridiculous. All statements on this thread can be devided into one of these two categories. Every single one. In fact it is logically impossible not to take one position or the other, besides taking no position at all. (If you don't believe me just try it.) You can oppose free speech to varying degrees, a lot of the discussion here has been exactly how to stamp out, or prevent free speech. That there is a spectrum of opinion on tactics does not negate the fact that they all share the same core principle. Opposition to free speech is inherently authoritarian, which I find objectionable, as an Anarchist.

So do you agree that censorship is okay in some instances?

[NGNM85]

So do you agree that censorship is okay in some instances?

In short, No. I'm essentially universally against censorship. However, it should be understood that things like explicit death threats, (Expressing both motivation and intent.) or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre are not implied by 'free expression.' Virtually no-one interprets it that way. However, those are about the only justifiable exceptions.

[#FF0000]

In short, No. I'm essentially universally against censorship. However, it should be understood that things like explicit death threats, (Expressing both motivation and intent.) or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre are not implied by 'free expression.' Virtually no-one interprets it that way. However, those are about the only justifiable exceptions.

I'm sort of reminded of another thread awhile back where they talked about censorship and someone p. much had your position on this. Someone else responded and mockingly suggested they show hardcore simulated rape porn on daytime television.

Would you consider restricting that sort of thing (even to just certain time slots or channels) an affront to free speech?

[NGNM85]

I'm sort of reminded of another thread awhile back where they talked about censorship and someone p. much had your position on this. Someone else responded and mockingly suggested they show hardcore simulated rape porn on daytime television.

Would you consider restricting that sort of thing (even to just certain time slots or channels) an affront to free speech?

Well, first there would have to be a sufficient market to warrant playing 'hardcore simulated rape porn' on major networks, especially during primetime hours. I sort of shudder to think what sort of civilization would merit such a thing. Obviously, children shouldn't be subjected to it, but that's already accepted for much less extreme fare, like Playboy, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. (Not that I'm equating the two on any level.) I really doubt that there's a sufficient market, or at least not so large that it wouldn't be dwarfed by the negative backlash. However, I wouldn't support banning it outright, (Again, we're talking simulated, here.) even though I think it's repulsive. What are the guidelines, then? I think that should mostly be determined by the public. I think networks tend to play to their most conservative constituents, to the point of absurdity. In particular, there was one episode of the X-Files (One of the best television shows of all time.)that featured a necrophiliac serial killer who caressed corpses, his murder victims, and in the end he kidnaps and terrorizes Agent Scully, however the network explicitly forbid any mention of the word 'necrophiliac', even though it was obviously the subject matter. This show had some truly grusome episodes, featuring decapitations, dead bodies, even one episode where people developed boils that popped releasing tiny insects,....however, simply hearing the word 'necrophiliac' was supposedly too traumatic for the audience. People are terrified of words in this country, and it's almost as bad on the left as on the right. Between the Christian family coalitions and the PC police on the other end virtually nothing of consequence is permissible. I think most Americans are a little more hip than that. European television features nudity and profanity and their societies don't collapse because of it. I think people will sink into an equilibrium between the extremes. I don't think it would present a problem because it's prevalence would be directly correlated to it's audience, which I would expect to be minimal.

[griffjam]

We oppose fascists because of what they do, not what they say. We’re not opposed to free speech; we’re opposed to the fact that they advance an agenda of hate and terror. We have no power to censor them; thanks to the “neutrality” of the capitalist market, they continue to publish hate literature in print and the internet. But we will not let them come into our communities to build the power they need to enact their hatred. The government and the police have never protected everyone’s free speech equally, and never will. It is in their self-interest to repress views and actions that challenge existing power inequalities. They will spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on riot police, helicopters, and sharpshooters to defend a KKK rally, but if there’s an anarchist rally the same police will be there to stop it, not to protect it. Anarchists don’t like being silenced by the state—but we don’t want the state to define and manage our freedom, either. Unlike the ACLU, whose supposed defense of “freedom” leads them to support the KKK and others like them, we support self-defense and selfdetermination above all. What’s the purpose of free speech, if not to foster a world free from oppression? Fascists oppose this vision;thus we oppose fascism by any means necessary.

Fascists are only attempting to express their views “peacefully” in order to lay the groundwork for violent activity. Because fascists require a veneer of social legitimacy to be able to carry out their program, giving them a platform to speak opens the door to their being able to do physical harm to people. Public speech promoting ideologies of hate, whether or not you consider it violent on its own, always complements and correlates with violent actions. By affiliating themselves with movements and ideologies based on oppression and genocide, fascists show their intention to carry on these legacies of violence—but only if they can develop a base of support.

No one has the right to threaten our community with violence. Likewise, we reject the “right” of the government and police—who have more in common with fascists than they do with us—to decide for us when fascists have crossed the line from merely expressing themselves into posing an immediate threat. We will not abdicate our freedom to judge when and how to defend ourselves.

[NGNM85]

We oppose fascists because of what they do, not what they say.

That's precisely what I'm advocating.


We’re not opposed to free speech;

Some people here clearly are.


we’re opposed to the fact that they advance an agenda of hate and terror.

Who isn't?


We have no power to censor them;

I'm actually fairly glad some of the people on here don't have that kind of power.


thanks to the “neutrality” of the capitalist market, they continue to publish hate literature in print and the internet. But we will not let them come into our communities to build the power they need to enact their hatred.

That's a little too vague.


The government and the police have never protected everyone’s free speech equally, and never will. It is in their self-interest to repress views and actions that challenge existing power inequalities. They will spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on riot police, helicopters, and sharpshooters to defend a KKK rally, but if there’s an anarchist rally the same police will be there to stop it, not to protect it.

That's a mostly accurate characterization.


Anarchists don’t like being silenced by the state—but we don’t want the state to define and manage our freedom, either. Unlike the ACLU, whose supposed defense of “freedom” leads them to support the KKK and others like them,

There's a difference between supporting something, and tolerating it.


we support self-defense and selfdetermination above all. What’s the purpose of free speech, if not to foster a world free from oppression? Fascists oppose this vision;thus we oppose fascism by any means necessary.

What you're describing isn't defense, it's a preemptive strike. Not unlike the Bush doctrine, which was essentially based on the same princuple.


Fascists are only attempting to express their views “peacefully” in order to lay the groundwork for violent activity.

Punishing people for crimes they are going to commit, is another way of saying you're punishing them for crimes they haven't committed.


Because fascists require a veneer of social legitimacy to be able to carry out their program, giving them a platform to speak opens the door to their being able to do physical harm to people. Public speech promoting ideologies of hate, whether or not you consider it violent on its own, always complements and correlates with violent actions. By affiliating themselves with movements and ideologies based on oppression and genocide, fascists show their intention to carry on these legacies of violence—but only if they can develop a base of support.

The fact that somewhat might listen to it is a really lousy reason for forbidding speech. This argument has historically predominantly been used against the left.


No one has the right to threaten our community with violence.

No-one has suggested otherwise.


Likewise, we reject the “right” of the government and police—who have more in common with fascists than they do with us—to decide for us when fascists have crossed the line from merely expressing themselves into posing an immediate threat. We will not abdicate our freedom to judge when and how to defend ourselves.

See, now you're making a bogus equivocation. Freedom of speech as a concept is not inherently linked to our government, as it exists today. Freedom of speech is a basic human right that you would be entitled to even if it were illegal. That's what basic human rights are. Once we allow ourselves to become accustomed to violating basic human rights we set a very dangerous precedent. As history shows, once a society makes that choice it just escalates. In the words of Martin Niemoller;
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

We cannot afford to tolerate basic human rights, anyone's basic human rights, being violated, otherwise, we do so at our own peril. An injustice to one, is an injustice to all. It's a stain on all our consciences. Simply put, you don't fight fascists by behaving like one.

[this is an invasion]

. Simply put, you don't fight fascists by behaving like one.

I agree. Which is why I'm not trying to fight fascism by advocating any form of nationalism, class collaboration, corporatism, or racial hatred.

[NGNM85]

I agree. Which is why I'm not trying to fight fascism by advocating any form of nationalism, class collaboration, corporatism, or racial hatred.

No, you're just proposing criminalizing unathorized opinions. Burning books and silencing dissent is authoritarian, and fascist.

[this is an invasion]

No, you're just proposing criminalizing unathorized opinions. Burning books and silencing dissent is authoritarian, and fascist.

I'm not proposing criminalizing anything. My position has nothing to do with the state or law, but comes from a desire and a need for immediate self-defense of working class communities.

Burning books doesn't make you a fascist, nor does silencing "dissent." We have enemies. Either you can deal with them, or be a loser.

[Adi Shankara]

We all hate Facists, however that does not give us a right to silence them. Thats facism inself is it not? They should be herd and exposed for the scum they are. And if thats what they people want that should be what the people get. You can't have a quasi-democracy, if people are taken in by it then its there own falut. Groups like EDL & the BNP should be left to embaress themsselfs because as it stand its us the left who are the one being show own up. We preach fairness and equality between people and classes and then silence a small group of people.

/rant

I do think arguments by SOME fascists should be heard...but it's hard to advocate them a platform of discussion when half their posts consist of hearsay, non-sequitur, trolling, and blatant racism.

[this is an invasion]

I do think arguments by SOME fascists should be heard...but it's hard to advocate them a platform of discussion when half their posts consist of hearsay, non-sequitur, trolling, and blatant racism.

Talkin' bout real life, bud.

[NGNM85]

I'm not proposing criminalizing anything. My position has nothing to do with the state or law, but comes from a desire and a need for immediate self-defense of working class communities.

Burning books doesn't make you a fascist, nor does silencing "dissent." We have enemies. Either you can deal with them, or be a loser.

Aggression is always justified as self-defense. According to Nazi party literature, the third reich was acting from completely benevolent intentions. Burning books and silencing dissent may not be the sole determinants of fascism, but they are traits all fascists share, and indicate substantial hostility towards any kind of free or democratic society. I never suggested we should sit passively indifferent when confronted with racist rhetoric. This is a straw-man argument.

Let's just put all of this to rest. What I am saying is;

The right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society. It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.

Believing in freedom of speech means believing in it for ideas that you find objectionable. Nobody goes to prison for supporting the status quo.

Criminalizing speech is fascist, authoritarian, and tantamount to burning books, which is just another means of shutting down free speech. This is the death knell for individual rights. Therefore, Anarchists should oppose it.

Second, Anarchists should oppose it out of hand because historically Anarchists have been the victims of such crusades. Like Thomas Paine, who was nearly executed once the new order was established and decided revolutionaries were no longer desirable.

Lastly, criminalizing free speech is bad because it’s tactically unsound. It just doesn’t work that well. In fact, it can very easily backfire and make the target more sympathetic. You don’t defeat bad ideas by silencing them. You defeat them by holding them under a spotlight for all to see. Especially bad ideas like neo-Nazism or holocaust denial should not be threatening because they are so easily countered. I despise religion, but I don’t want to throw all religious people into internment camps. I want new rules of conversation, I want to have a public, critical dialogue, because I know their ideas can’t possibly hold up.

Lastly, virtually every leap forward in human progress, every visionary has drastically challenged the fundamental beliefs of the day, in art, culture, science, etc. If we silence the Faurisson’s we’re likely to silence the Galileo’s as well. Dissent is healthy, and moreover it’s fundamental to Anarchism.

[this is an invasion]

Aggression is always justified as self-defense. According to Nazi party literature, the third reich was acting from completely benevolent intentions. Burning books and silencing dissent may not be the sole determinants of fascism, but they are traits all fascists share, and indicate substantial hostility towards any kind of free or democratic society. I never suggested we should sit passively indifferent when confronted with racist rhetoric. This is a straw-man argument.

Let's just put all of this to rest. What I am saying is;

The right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society. It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.

Believing in freedom of speech means believing in it for ideas that you find objectionable. Nobody goes to prison for supporting the status quo.

Criminalizing speech is fascist, authoritarian, and tantamount to burning books, which is just another means of shutting down free speech. This is the death knell for individual rights. Therefore, Anarchists should oppose it.

Second, Anarchists should oppose it out of hand because historically Anarchists have been the victims of such crusades. Like Thomas Paine, who was nearly executed once the new order was established and decided revolutionaries were no longer desirable.

Lastly, criminalizing free speech is bad because it’s tactically unsound. It just doesn’t work that well. In fact, it can very easily backfire and make the target more sympathetic. You don’t defeat bad ideas by silencing them. You defeat them by holding them under a spotlight for all to see. Especially bad ideas like neo-Nazism or holocaust denial should not be threatening because they are so easily countered. I despise religion, but I don’t want to throw all religious people into internment camps. I want new rules of conversation, I want to have a public, critical dialogue, because I know their ideas can’t possibly hold up.

Lastly, virtually every leap forward in human progress, every visionary has drastically challenged the fundamental beliefs of the day, in art, culture, science, etc. If we silence the Faurisson’s we’re likely to silence the Galileo’s as well. Dissent is healthy, and moreover it’s fundamental to Anarchism.
Have you ever been mugged by nazis in your own neighborhood? Has your family ever been targeted because you are involved in anti-fascist/communist/anarchist projects? I have, and my friends have. Not to mention that fascists regularly make it clear they are willing to use lethal and near lethal force against their enemies. I am not necessarily suggesting we do the same, but while you carry on about alienating the rights of these sorts of people, working class people are continuing to be intimated, beaten up and murdered by fascist thugs.

I have already said I am against criminalizing fascism. Read my other posts. Nice try, though, bud.


Also, I am not against people disagreeing with each other or myself. I don't know what I've ever said could suggest that. But I do recognize that I have enemies. I believe it is extremely practical to deal with those enemies.

[Sam_b]

it should be understood that things like explicit death threats, (Expressing both motivation and intent.)

The thing is, nobody's spoken in favour of preventing opinions that are counter to ours. As has been said, many political parties carry racist immigration policies, yet the left does not support no platform in these circumstances. However, there are organisations and we've seen them in history, of organisations - fascists - calling for Jews, LGBT community, Trade Unionists and our comrades being murdered and sent to concentration camps. Funnily enough, this happened.

So such explicit death threats under fascism, by your logic hear no-platformism is at times sound and justified?

By the way, IIRC this is the same discussion that happened in the KPD and Social Democrats in Germany around the rise of the NSDAP and questions to support no platform or not. In the end, it was decided that such 'freedom of speech' should be observed against the Nazis. Guess what happened to them? Bonus points for what elements of 'freedom of speech' came after they allowed the Nazis to have their platform.

[Adi Shankara]

Talkin' bout real life, bud.

My bad...in that case, they should be be heard as far as their positions on politics and economy go...why? because it can only strengthen the position of communism when fascism is tackled on a dialectical basis. the minute racial theories start hatching though, is the minute they should have the cuffs slapped on them for inciting racial hatred.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded building. that's common sense. Freedom of speech does not give Fascists to incite hatred.

[Fietsketting]

Oh great. This post again. Try again with more substance please. One-liners and no content = infraction.

Anyway, for content, I don't think very much of modern anti-fascism. In most cases. Strikes me as kids doing kid things (streetfighting!) except with red flags and swastikas. It isn't 1930 anymore and stupid racists saying stupid racist things are far less important and damaging than white privilege the more subtle racism prevalent in society today.

You clearly haven't been to mainland Europe, haven't you? The extreme right is on the rise as well on streetlevel as on parlementairy level.

[Adi Shankara]

You clearly haven't been to mainland Europe, haven't you? The extreme right is on the rise as well on streetlevel as on parlementairy level.

very true; While Neo-Nazis in the USA are more punchlines than anything else, self-hating Russian neo-nazis beat a 9 year old little girl to death for being Kazakh. this shit happens all the time there now, and they travel in cowardly packs.

they do NOT deserve a platform for speech. they lost that privilege, and these groups should be outlawed as terrorist organizations.

also worrying, are groups like Liga Nord and the French Right's rise to prominence. they should be combated at any cost.

meanwhile, I hope we get to see more of this in the future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WMa1vk9lzo&feature=player_embedded&has_verified=1

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/383/14896_skinheads.html --large group of Russian skinheads get owned by two asian (caucasian) men

[Sam_b]

and these groups should be outlawed as terrorist organizations

Disagree. We should not be letting the state do the work that has to be done by the class. As has been mentioned, and written extensively by the likes of Trotsky, fascism can only be defeated by the mass of the class. The state arbitrarily banning them does not fundamentally solve anything (as we have seen with some groups in Russia and Eastern Europe) and makes martyrs.

I don't think banning a party necessarily curtails their membership or any of the atrocious things that these guys commit.

[NGNM85]

The thing is, nobody's spoken in favour of preventing opinions that are counter to ours.

Some people have said everything but.


As has been said, many political parties carry racist immigration policies, yet the left does not support no platform in these circumstances. However, there are organisations and we've seen them in history, of organisations - fascists - calling for Jews, LGBT community, Trade Unionists and our comrades being murdered and sent to concentration camps. Funnily enough, this happened.

I'll say it again; everyone has the right to defend themselves from harm, (Including racists.) that has never been questioned. Such actions should be met with immediate response. However, what's being advocated is something else, entirely. It's preemptive violence for acts people are deemed 'likely' to commit. Such a policy is so speculative it can justify just about anything. This is criminalizing thought, let's make that clear.


So such explicit death threats under fascism, by your logic hear no-platformism is at times sound and justified?

No, that's very different. For example, it's perfectly legitimate to say "I want to kill you.", or "I want you to die." However, if one says "I'm going to kill you.", and gives sufficient justification to indicate they mean it, (Not like when your mom said; "If you don't clean your room , I'm going to kill you.") that's criminal. If a racist group says they want to exterminate the Jews, that's offensive, but within bounds, if they say "Now, we're going to kill the Jews." and assemble weapons, or start menacing people, then they are comitting a crime. As long as it stays within the realm of theory, it's off-limits. That isn't denying them a platform, that's maintaining order and protecting the public.


By the way, IIRC this is the same discussion that happened in the KPD and Social Democrats in Germany around the rise of the NSDAP and questions to support no platform or not. In the end, it was decided that such 'freedom of speech' should be observed against the Nazis. Guess what happened to them?

This is why I specifically mentioned the Niemoller quote, the whole point of what he was saying was that basic human rights are sacrosanct. His mistake was the mistake of tolerating that. Saying; "Oh, it's just for neo-Nazis." is no different than saying it's 'just' the Communists, or the Jews. This is where that behavior always leads, because that behavior is the antithesis of freedom and democracy.


Bonus points for what elements of 'freedom of speech' came after they allowed the Nazis to have their platform.

This is the justification behind the PATRIOT act. If we had a video-camera in every room in every room crime would drop dramatically. "Oh, but you don't have to worry if you're not doing anything wrong." Right? It should be obvious the error in this way of thinking. Having a free and democratic society isn't without it's price, it takes effort, and it has some drawbacks, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is very easy and simple. You just establish the rules and bludgeon anybody who gets out of line, you don't even have to come up with complicated excuses because people are too terrorized to ask questions.

[NGNM85]

Have you ever been mugged by nazis in your own neighborhood? Has your family ever been targeted because you are involved in anti-fascist/communist/anarchist projects? I have, and my friends have.

From what I gather it sounds like you live in the US or UK. Neo-nazism isn't really a serious threat in the West, especially in America. What are we defining as 'anti-fascist projects'? If you mean starting fights, you can't be totally surprised by the response. I would advise against antagonizing those people, the tend to be an exciteable lot. The best antidote to neo-nazism is reducing income inequality and improving public education. That's a real solution. I generally don't associate with people who describe themselves as "ANTIFA" because I think it's a pointless and redundant classification that I think makes them sound like a bit of a nimrod.


Not to mention that fascists regularly make it clear they are willing to use lethal and near lethal force against their enemies. I am not necessarily suggesting we do the same, but while you carry on about alienating the rights of these sorts of people, working class people are continuing to be intimated, beaten up and murdered by fascist thugs.

That needs to be dealt with, absolutely. Nobody suggested otherwise. That's totally unacceptable.


I have already said I am against criminalizing fascism. Read my other posts. Nice try, though, bud.

Also, I am not against people disagreeing with each other or myself. I don't know what I've ever said could suggest that. But I do recognize that I have enemies. I believe it is extremely practical to deal with those enemies.

You haven't, specifically, (Although, others have.) however you have made some vague statements that are a little unsettling. For instance, you're subdued reaction to book burning, and these remarks about 'enemies' and how to 'deal' with them. These are not particularly encouraging. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I have a feeling You're a little further to the right of me on this one.

[Adi Shankara]

again. Freedom of speech needs limits. you can't have people scream fire in a crowded building, nor can you advocate the genocide of a people. both can carry deadly consequences, and are no longer about speaking, but about appealing to human fear to cause harm to others. there is nothing free about that at all, if it infringes on the rights of others.

[Adi Shankara]

I generally don't associate with people who describe themselves as "ANTIFA" because I think it's a pointless and redundant classification that I think makes them sound like a bit of a nimrod.

...as opposed to you, who sits behind a computer screen, preaching to us about why fascists should have the right to call for the deaths of people who are otherwise defenseless?

at we're actually doing something. what are you doing for the leftist movement, besides bullshitting everyone into believing your brand of libertarian thinking has anything to do with leftist politics?

[NGNM85]

again. Freedom of speech needs limits. you can't have people scream fire in a crowded building, nor can you advocate the genocide of a people. both can carry deadly consequences, and are no longer about speaking, but about appealing to human fear to cause harm to others. there is nothing free about that at all, if it infringes on the rights of others.

Screaming “Fire!” in a crowded building is not free speech, it’s criminal behavior. It doesn’t apply. However, distributing Mein Kampf, or Rockwell’s White Power!, while repulsive, is quite different.


...as opposed to you, who sits behind a computer screen, preaching to us about why fascists should have the right to call for the deaths of people who are otherwise defenseless?

If they are actually threatening people, owning the action and expressing intent to do imminent harm, they are committing a crime and should be dealt with, accordingly. However, being a racist jackass, by itself, is not a crime. Moreover, there seems to be a misunderstanding about how human rights work. (Again, this was the point of the Niemoller quote.) You can’t just section off one group of people, even if they are assholes, and say everyone has rights but them. Human rights are universal.


at we're actually doing something.

What are you doing to end neo-Nazism? I already suggested the most effective course of action. As I figure, you either mean just a lot of talk amongst yourselves, or antagonizing these people, neither of which is likely to change much. It’s no surprise neo-Nazis tend to be poor and poorly educated, that’s the root of the problem. Moreover, neo-Nazism is hardly an epidemic in the US. They have no political power, and even the Glenn-Beck-Teabagger-crazies think they’re freaks.


what are you doing for the leftist movement, besides bullshitting everyone into believing your brand of libertarian thinking has anything to do with leftist politics?

It’s interesting you continue to wield this word ‘Libertarian’ like a weapon. Doubtless you should know that this term belongs to leftist politics, that it is synonymous with Anarchism, and has been, everywhere up until a few decades ago in the United States. Moreover, nothing I’ve said really resembles the platform of this group in any measureable way. It’s puzzling.

Historically, free speech has been a favored cause in the Anarchist movement. For example, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Noam Chomsky, the list goes on..

At the moment I’m arguing politics, ideas that I happen to take very seriously as they are rooted in my most deeply held beliefs and moral convictions. I thought that was the point. As an Anarchist, I am morally and philosophically opposed to criminalizing speech, which is authoritarian.

[this is an invasion]

From what I gather it sounds like you live in the US or UK. Neo-nazism isn't really a serious threat in the West, especially in America. What are we defining as 'anti-fascist projects'? If you mean starting fights, you can't be totally surprised by the response. I would advise against antagonizing those people, the tend to be an exciteable lot. The best antidote to neo-nazism is reducing income inequality and improving public education. That's a real solution. I generally don't associate with people who describe themselves as "ANTIFA" because I think it's a pointless and redundant classification that I think makes them sound like a bit of a nimrod. At the time, my anti-fascist projects were putting up anti-fascist propaganda and creating a nazi-free punk scene where I lived. Anti-fascism is how I entered into radical politics (through punk), and my politics didn't really go beyond "nazis and racism are bad."

I don't consider myeslf "antifa" although I like the shit they do in Europe. I don't even consider myself an "anti-fascist" because I think it is a political dead end and counter-revolutionary. I would not support the Democratic Party because they are "less fascist" than the Republican Party or whatever. The only time anti-fascist/anti-racist groups have any relevance to the working class is when they are created for the immediate self defense of working class communities.

"[The antifascists] have to explain how an omnipresent state to which people constantly turn for protection and help, this veritable machine for producing social "good", will not commit "evil" when explosive contradictions require it to restore order. Fascism is the adulation of the statist monster, while anti-fascism is its more subtle apology. The fight for a democratic state is inevitably a fight to consolidate the state, and far from crippling totalitarianism, such a fight increases totalitarianism's stranglehold on society." -by Gilles Dauvé When Insurrections Die

Your "solutions" to neo-naziism not only reek of liberalism, but are also completely unrealistic in dealing with fascist thugs right now. Like I said, you can go on and on about protecting freedom of speech for assholes, or in this case, go on about reforming public education and reducing income inequality (whatever that means), but in the mean time, people are going to continue to face the very real threat of violence by fascists.




That needs to be dealt with, absolutely. Nobody suggested otherwise. That's totally unacceptable. And how do you suggest we deal with this threat? Propaganda alone won't keep nazis out of our neighborhoods. A nazi isn't going to be all like "Oh fuck a poster with a swastika crossed out, I better pack up and leave."





You haven't, specifically, (Although, others have.) however you have made some vague statements that are a little unsettling. For instance, you're subdued reaction to book burning, and these remarks about 'enemies' and how to 'deal' with them. These are not particularly encouraging. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I have a feeling You're a little further to the right of me on this one.

I have destroyed books that belong to people who I would consider enemies. I don't see what is so sacred about books. I think most people just have knee-jerk reactions to the destruction of books because it's associated with Hitler. It's like the time some dude from Crimethinc said rioting was bad because Krystalnacht was a riot.

I have also burned many copies of Slingshot newspaper trying to start a bonfire. Sue me.

What is so terrible about acknowledging that I, and we, have enemies? Capitalists are our enemies, fascists are our enemies, cops are our enemies. We all propose ways to deal with them. If you don't then you either don't actually have revolutionary politics, or you're not being sincere. In the case of fascists, I propose that we kick them out of our neighborhoods. Physically. Make it impossible for them to appear on our streets. And put up propaganda attacking fascism as anti-working class ideology.

And come on, "further to the right"? I have a feeling that you are far more liberal than I am. But for real, politics don't actually exist in a left-right line. Using your logic/conception of politics as a left-right spectrum, what you said doesn't even make sense. According to you, my denial of freedom of speech to fascists pushes me closer to liberals. Care to explain to me how that makes sense?

[Sam_b]

I'll say it again; everyone has the right to defend themselves from harm, (Including racists.)

We are not talking about racists. We are talking about fascists. If you can't see a difference, then you are doomed to making a simplistic argument.


As an Anarchist, I am morally and philosophically opposed to criminalizing speech, which is authoritarian....yet you call the 'fire!' example as a 'criminal offence'. So you are opposed to criminalising speech, but supportive of the state being able to govern by its own imposed laws?


This is the justification behind the PATRIOT act. If we had a video-camera in every room in every room crime would drop dramatically. "Oh, but you don't have to worry if you're not doing anything wrong." Right? It should be obvious the error in this way of thinking. Having a free and democratic society isn't without it's price, it takes effort, and it has some drawbacks, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is very easy and simple. You just establish the rules and bludgeon anybody who gets out of line, you don't even have to come up with complicated excuses because people are too terrorized to ask questions.

You make it sound like the turn of Nazism to trying to single-handedly destroy the working class and events such as Krystalnacht suddenly BANG!!! just appeared out of nowhere, and were entirely unconnected to the Nazi party having freedom of speech. This also happened with the Italian Fascists, the Slovak nationalists, the Arrow Cross, all just out of nothing; because hey there'll always be a few bad grapes, right?
The problem here is you are talking abstractly about 'human rights' as if this is somehow the undisputed end of an argument, and with emotional calls of 'this will just turn to the silencing of the Jews and communists!' without having any idea of a fundamental class analysis. We don't just wish to stop fascism because of its (often but not always) inherant racism and acting upon it; but because it wishes to destroy not just the very vestiges of democracy itself but completely destroy the woring class. And every time people have bought this 'freedom of speech' on a massive scale during the rise, we have seen the consequence.

[Bud Struggle]

It just does no good for the authorities to ban free speach. It only drives it underground. Fascists have a scummy message and in every society there are scummy people that will listen to it--underground or above ground. It's best if such things are left out in the open where they can be discussed and discussed and found out for what it is.

If you don't believe that people are capable of making their own decisions as to what is wrong and what is right then you can't really believe a Communist society (where people govern tnhemselves) would work.

Here in America Fascist are allowed to say whatever they like (besides for advocating violence) and people can listen to them join them and believe in them if they wish--and almost no one does except for a few psychpaths. (Then again alnost no one joins the Communist either--and they have freedom of speach, too.)

People are intelligent and well educated and know what they want, they have beliefs that come not from the media or politicians, but from the way they were raised--and few people are being raised Fascist.

It doesn't do any good to take away people's rights to say or hear things. Let the Fascist be heard and the Communist as well. The anti-Facists and the anti-Communists. And the anti-Capitalists, too.

[Sam_b]

I think this is a confusing question to ask him, because I don't see it particularly being related to the subject at hand.

Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, all sold lies to the class. All did what we would say as objectively 'bad' things to the workers. But they aren't fascist. We need to be asking questions here of fascism as the political phenomenon and fighting it from a principled class basis - otherwise, like seen above, we do degenerate into calling no-platorm on people and organisations we do not like.

First and foremost we deny the so-called 'right' of freedom of speech to those who want to physically and emotionally destroy the working class, and the concept of democracy itself. Not because we do not like some people doing horrible things.

[Adi Shankara]

I think this is a confusing question to ask him, because I don't see it particularly being related to the subject at hand.

I'm just confused as hell to his complete "commitment" to freedom of speech, yet he thinks that calling fire in a crowded building is a criminal act. it confuses me as to why one is okay and the other isn't, when it comes to fascism. the scenario wasn't that great admittingly, but what about those fascists in Britain who publish the personal addresses of antifa or journalists who report on their scenes?


First and foremost we deny the so-called 'right' of freedom of speech to those who want to physically and emotionally destroy the working class, and the concept of democracy itself. Not because we do not like some people doing horrible things.

to destroy the working class is to destroy democracy, in my opinion. using democracy to destroy democracy is idiotic in my opinion, which is why I always have such a hard time understanding libertarians.

[RGacky3]

So now the question: You don't think the father should be punished for infringing on the rights of another human being, even if they're only speaking their mind?

I never understood this belief that "words can't ever hurt me" because words hurt everyone when they are turned into weapons. that's how Hitler and Mussolini sold a lie or two to Germany and Italy.

Who decides that?

[Adi Shankara]

Who decides that?

the state, in the form of the people. remember, that was a scenario made in an idealized nation.

in real terms, it should be whoever has been chosen by the people to create such laws to represent them.

[RGacky3]

So your ok, with a majority taking away the rights on a minority? Heres the thing, can words hurt people? Yeah, can lies hurt people? Yeah, but what can do more damage than any of that is the precidence of taking away freedom of speach. Its like saying, well drugs can hurt people, they can hurt families so we need to legislate against them, or even something like "obesity can damage people, it can damage relationships, so lets ban fat foods." It can't work like that.

[Sam_b]

in real terms, it should be the people to create such laws to represent them

Fixed your post :thumbup1:

[Adi Shankara]

Fixed your post :thumbup1:

eliminate the middle man! no hassle! no extra fees! :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

The is exactly the problem with Freedom--people can decide to do whatever they want and believe whatever they want.

And sometime that whatever--is Fascism. And it creates a choice, you can let them go Fascist or you can take away their freedom and become Fascist yourself. History books are full of Glorious Leaders that have "saved their people from themselves."

[this is an invasion]

It just does no good for the authorities to ban free speach. It only drives it underground. Fascists have a scummy message and in every society there are scummy people that will listen to it--underground or above ground. It's best if such things are left out in the open where they can be discussed and discussed and found out for what it is.

If you don't believe that people are capable of making their own decisions as to what is wrong and what is right then you can't really believe a Communist society (where people govern tnhemselves) would work.

Here in America Fascist are allowed to say whatever they like (besides for advocating violence) and people can listen to them join them and believe in them if they wish--and almost no one does except for a few psychpaths. (Then again alnost no one joins the Communist either--and they have freedom of speach, too.)

People are intelligent and well educated and know what they want, they have beliefs that come not from the media or politicians, but from the way they were raised--and few people are being raised Fascist.

It doesn't do any good to take away people's rights to say or hear things. Let the Fascist be heard and the Communist as well. The anti-Facists and the anti-Communists. And the anti-Capitalists, too.

People are all about Glenn Beck, and I personally believe he is one of the closest things we have to actual fascism.

Not that wingnut Blackshirt neo-nazi shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I'd suggest that the US police force with its nearly one million personnel, or US Customs and Border Protection with over 56,500 border patrol agents, or US Immigration and Customs Enforcement with its approx. 20,000 personnel, plays a much more central role in intimidating immigrants and ethnic minorities in the US than any far right American fringe group (i.e. what people around here call "fascists") could dream of. That isn't to say we should make excuses for rightwing bigots, but to present rightwing bigots 'pushing on the ruling class' as the cause of racism and xenophobia, or as a greater/more immediate threat to the working class than the capitalist class (and its state) itself, I just find completely inexcusable.

Not "pushing", but making far-right views acceptable - opening the political space for the ruling class to move to the right. The federal government also does worse than what the Arizona state governmnet can do - should we also ignore this? What was Obama's respence to the Arizona law? He sent more national guard to the southern border!

All this shit is connected: Arizona is a testing ground and other governments are watching it to see if they can do the same. The more the "minutmen" are seen as acceptable and mainstream, the more room the US governmnet has to "respond to the crisis".

Do you seriously think that if there was not a wide-spread myth that all (white) "real americans" see the Minutmen favorably and are in support of Arizona's new restrictions that the federal governmnet would be trying to pass new legislation for militarizing the border? No, they would know that any attempt to do that would cause a repeat of the mass job actions and walkouts that happened in response to the Sensenbrenner bill.

When hate-groups have, in the past, gained even an inch of mainstream acceptability, it has meant that, at the top, the government has been able to get away with moving to the right and, at the bottom, it has meant increases in lynchings and bigotry-motivated murder.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The is exactly the problem with Freedom--people can decide to do whatever they want and believe whatever they want.

And sometime that whatever--is Fascism. And it creates a choice, you can let them go Fascist or you can take away their freedom and become Fascist yourself. History books are full of Glorious Leaders that have "saved their people from themselves."Again, nobody is saying that state laws should be made banning these groups... censorship accomplishes nothing; it's like trying to use a pain-killer to cure a virus.

However, we just need to exercise OUR freedom of speech and assembly and shout them down, surround them, and demoralize them until they retreat back to the internet.

When the KKK have their backwoods meetings and gatherings, no one on the left to my knowledge, tracks them down to protest them - but when they show up in working class communities, it is not for a free-exchange of ideas, it is to organize reaction/racism, and remind workers of the "proper social order". Is burning a cross, a craft project - are wearing those robes or boots just trendy fash fashion? No it is all designed to scare workers into obedience.

[#FF0000]

Again, nobody is saying that state laws should be made banning these groups... censorship accomplishes nothing; it's like trying to use a pain-killer to cure a virus.

However, we just need to exercise OUR freedom of speech and assembly and shout them down, surround them, and demoralize them until they retreat back to the internet.

When the KKK have their backwoods meetings and gatherings, no one on the left to my knowledge, tracks them down to protest them - but when they show up in working class communities, it is not for a free-exchange of ideas, it is to organize reaction/racism, and remind workers of the "proper social order". Is burning a cross, a craft project - are wearing those robes or boots just trendy fash fashion? No it is all designed to scare workers into obedience.

This is exactly what "no platform" is and what anti-fascists advocate, and I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with this.

[NGNM85]

At the time, my anti-fascist projects were putting up anti-fascist propaganda and creating a nazi-free punk scene where I lived. Anti-fascism is how I entered into radical politics (through punk), and my politics didn't really go beyond "nazis and racism are bad."

That's....fine. However, I wouldn't expect this to produce any kind of substantial change.


I don't consider myeslf "antifa" although I like the shit they do in Europe. I don't even consider myself an "anti-fascist" because I think it is a political dead end and counter-revolutionary. I would not support the Democratic Party because they are "less fascist" than the Republican Party or whatever. The only time anti-fascist/anti-racist groups have any relevance to the working class is when they are created for the immediate self defense of working class communities.

The consistent Anarchist position on voting and elections is a topic for another thread.


"[The antifascists] have to explain how an omnipresent state to which people constantly turn for protection and help, this veritable machine for producing social "good", will not commit "evil" when explosive contradictions require it to restore order. Fascism is the adulation of the statist monster, while anti-fascism is its more subtle apology. The fight for a democratic state is inevitably a fight to consolidate the state, and far from crippling totalitarianism, such a fight increases totalitarianism's stranglehold on society." -by Gilles Dauvé When Insurrections Die

I think this is a flawed, and overly simplistic outlook.


Your "solutions" to neo-naziism not only reek of liberalism,

I'd argue with that but the word has no meaning here, so it doesn't matter.


but are also completely unrealistic in dealing with fascist thugs right now. Like I said, you can go on and on about protecting freedom of speech for assholes, or in this case, go on about reforming public education and reducing income inequality (whatever that means), but in the mean time, people are going to continue to face the very real threat of violence by fascists.

Well, it'd be nice if we could just wiggle our noses and make it magically disappear like Samantha in Bewitched, but life doesn't work that way. My recommendation was not particularly complex, that we should improve both the quality, and the accessibility of education, and decrease income inequality, improving material conditions for the working class. This is actually the most effective technique to eliminate neo-Nazism. Although, unfortunately, it isn't particularly sexy and isn't going to make anybody feel like a badass. Oh well.

There's no reason that it's going to sink in this time when it didn't last time, but in any case;

If neo-Nazis are actually doing violence that's criminal and should be immediately dealt with, my advice would be first to defend yourself, second to contact the authorities. This is not a 'statist' idea, physically assaulting people wouldn't be any less prohibited in an Anarchist society than it is now, just as murder, rape, etc., would be equally unacceptable. However, that has never been disputed. What's being suggested is oppressing or attacking people simply for having ideas, that's very different.



And how do you suggest we deal with this threat? Propaganda alone won't keep nazis out of our neighborhoods. A nazi isn't going to be all like "Oh fuck a poster with a swastika crossed out, I better pack up and leave."

Probably not.


I have destroyed books that belong to people who I would consider enemies. I don't see what is so sacred about books. I think most people just have knee-jerk reactions to the destruction of books because it's associated with Hitler. It's like the time some dude from Crimethinc said rioting was bad because Krystalnacht was a riot.

I have also burned many copies of Slingshot newspaper trying to start a bonfire. Sue me.

You weren't doing it as an authoritarian tactic to suppress unathorized thought and enforce ideological purity, that's the difference.


What is so terrible about acknowledging that I, and we, have enemies? Capitalists are our enemies, fascists are our enemies, cops are our enemies. We all propose ways to deal with them. If you don't then you either don't actually have revolutionary politics, or you're not being sincere. In the case of fascists, I propose that we kick them out of our neighborhoods. Physically. Make it impossible for them to appear on our streets. And put up propaganda attacking fascism as anti-working class ideology.

My problem is it's a dangerously oversimplified outlook that has an explicitly authoritarian leaning.


And come on, "further to the right"? I have a feeling that you are far more liberal than I am.

Again, I'm not going to touch that.


But for real, politics don't actually exist in a left-right line. Using your logic/conception of politics as a left-right spectrum, what you said doesn't even make sense. According to you, my denial of freedom of speech to fascists pushes me closer to liberals. Care to explain to me how that makes sense?

The most accurate political spectrum involves a double-axis graph with four quadrants, like the test that's floating around here, I'm sure you've seen it. However, this is cumbersome for purposes of conversation. I simply used the generally accepted terms to facilitate communication. The single-axis spectrum goes from left to right, generally, authoritarian and libertarian. (Note; 'libertarian' in the sense of the actual, historical meaning of the word, not the new American definition.) Fascism would be at the ultimate extreme end of the right half, with Anarchism being the end of the left hemisphere. I prefer a free and democratic society where we have a struggle of ideas, wheras you're favoring a more authoritarian prohibition on certain ideas. So, yes, according to the historical definition, you are to the right of me on this issue. That is what I meant.

[NGNM85]

We are not talking about racists. We are talking about fascists. If you can't see a difference, then you are doomed to making a simplistic argument.

It's actually irrelevant, it has no bearing on what I'm saying, but I have no problem with this.


...yet you call the 'fire!' example as a 'criminal offence'. So you are opposed to criminalising speech, but supportive of the state being able to govern by its own imposed laws?

This is false, because, as I said, there's no reason it would be any different in an Anarchist society. Rape and murder are likewise prohibited under this government, for very legitimate reasons, it's the only sensible conclusion.


You make it sound like the turn of Nazism to trying to single-handedly destroy the working class and events such as Krystalnacht suddenly BANG!!! just appeared out of nowhere,

No, it came from a combination of an extreme German nationalist racialist ideology that had existed for decades, combined with the social chaos arising from the end of the Great War.


and were entirely unconnected to the Nazi party having freedom of speech. This also happened with the Italian Fascists, the Slovak nationalists, the Arrow Cross, all just out of nothing; because hey there'll always be a few bad grapes, right?

This is a fundamentally authoritarian outlook, moreover, it's a bad argument. You're tacitly implying that your own ideas are so weak they couldn't possibly stand up on their own, or that neo-fascism is inherently irresistible.


The problem here is you are talking abstractly about 'human rights' as if this is somehow the undisputed end of an argument,

There's nothing abstract about it. This isn't some far-away theoretical concept. it's very simple, and very real.


and with emotional calls of 'this will just turn to the silencing of the Jews and communists!'

Once a society decides basic human rights are expendible they tend to act accordingly, with increasing frequency. Jews, communists, Anarchists, the actual groups being marginalized are irrelevant, it doesn't change anything.


without having any idea of a fundamental class analysis.

If anything, this is just confusing the issue, and obscuring the reality of the situation.


We don't just wish to stop fascism because of its (often but not always) inherant racism and acting upon it; but because it wishes to destroy not just the very vestiges of democracy itself but completely destroy the woring class. And every time people have bought this 'freedom of speech' on a massive scale during the rise, we have seen the consequence.

This is exactly the position of all authoritarians, from hard authoritarians, like Saddam Hussein, or the Chinese Communist Party, or what have you, to US foreign policymakers. The US absolutely supports democracy promotion in the Palestinian territories, Nicaragua, etc., provided they do exactly what the Pentagon wants. They have this kind of democracy in Russia. Of course, this attitude reveals a very deep contempt for democracy. It's not unlike Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the intellectual architects of US government policy who wrote about an 'enlightened' class of men, who are needed to make the desisions for the 'bewildered herd' who couldn't possibly understand whats' good for them.

[9]

Originally Posted by Sam_b
The problem here is you are talking abstractly about 'human rights' as if this is somehow the undisputed end of an argument,
There's nothing abstract about it. This isn't some far-away theoretical concept. it's very simple, and very real.

Yes, about as real as the inevitable coming of the anointed son of David.

[griffjam]

Simply put, you don't fight fascists by behaving like one.

You could just as easily say that not stopping fascists from speaking—giving them the opportunity to organize to impose their agenda on the rest of us—makes you as bad as them. If you care about freedom, don’t stand idly by while people mobilize to take it away.

The bulk of racism takes place in subtle, everyday forms. But fascist visibility enables other right-wing groups to frame themselves as moderates, helping to legitimize the racist and xenophobic assumptions underlying their positions and the systems of power and privilege they defend. Taking a stand against fascists is an essential step toward discrediting the structures and values at the root of institutionalized racism. Here and worldwide, fascists still terrorize and murder people because of racial, religious, and sexual difference. It’s both naïve and disrespectful to their victims to gloss over the past and present realities of fascist violence. Because fascists believe in acting directly to carry out their agenda rather than limiting themselves to the apparatus of representative democracy, they can be more dangerous proportionate to their numbers than other bigots. This makes it an especially high priority to deal with them swiftly.

Oppressors already have their stage. The oppressed must steal it from them. The world is not a grand democratic forum where we can all sit at the table and argue it out until we agree on something - People are brutalized and attacked every day. To simply sit idly by while people drum up support for racism and fascism is the worst kind of complacency.

[this is an invasion]

That's....fine. However, I wouldn't expect this to produce any kind of substantial change.
Duh. Notice the part where I said "at the time" and "I don't even consider myself an 'anti-fascist'"?

Although, the redskins in Paris were extremely effective in keeping neo-nazis out of punk shows. They did this by aggressively hunting nazis in the streets, and acting as security for punk shows.



The consistent Anarchist position on voting and elections is a topic for another thread. I'm talking about taking political anti-fascism to it's logical conclusion, which ends up being an extremely liberal position. And one that, historically, has proven to be ineffective in stopping fascism.




I think this is a flawed, and overly simplistic outlook.I think it is fairly accurate. Where does this leave us?




I'd argue with that but the word has no meaning here, so it doesn't matter.
I'm just saying that your politics have so far been non-revolutionary.



Well, it'd be nice if we could just wiggle our noses and make it magically disappear like Samantha in Bewitched, but life doesn't work that way. My recommendation was not particularly complex, that we should improve both the quality, and the accessibility of education, and decrease income inequality, improving material conditions for the working class. This is actually the most effective technique to eliminate neo-Nazism. Although, unfortunately, it isn't particularly sexy and isn't going to make anybody feel like a badass. Oh well. This is the problem of anti-fascism. As revolutionaries intent on destroying capitalism, improving the working class condition within capitalism is not our goal. Sorry. Politically fighting fascism destroys revolution. The only way to get rid of fascism is to get rid of capitalism. That is our goal. This has nothing to do with being "bad ass," but has everything to do with not straying from revolutionary politics to mistakenly see one political aspect of capitalism as a bigger threat than another political aspect of capitalism.

Historically, the anti-fascist fight to preserve democracy, especially in revolutionary situations, has not only led to the destruction of said proletarian insurrections, but has proven to be completely incapable of removing fascism. The only response to fascism is a working class response to capitalism.

While you're off fighting for reforms that are a long way off (and in places like California with the on going budget crisis, are completely unrealistic), fascists will continue to target working class people. I don't know why you think you can ignore this. The only way to keep our neighborhoods safe is to physically kick fascists out, and not allow them any ground to stand on.




There's no reason that it's going to sink in this time when it didn't last time, but in any case;

If neo-Nazis are actually doing violence that's criminal and should be immediately dealt with, my advice would be first to defend yourself, second to contact the authorities. This is not a 'statist' idea, physically assaulting people wouldn't be any less prohibited in an Anarchist society than it is now, just as murder, rape, etc., would be equally unacceptable. However, that has never been disputed. What's being suggested is oppressing or attacking people simply for having ideas, that's very different.
How are you going to call yourself an Anarchist and then say that calling the "authorities" is ever a legitimate option?

I suggest attacking people that pose a threat to working class communities and to working class revolution. Don't confuse me for some thug. I definitely understand the class composition of those who end up as fascist thugs, and I understand the need to reach out to people in order to help prevent the rise of fascist movements, but I do this from a position that also understands the need for the destruction of this system. I also understand that simply reaching out to people and putting up propaganda will not stop fascists from trying to take over neighborhoods or attack working people.




Probably not. It won't. They need to be kicked out.




You weren't doing it as an authoritarian tactic to suppress unathorized thought and enforce ideological purity, that's the difference. I was definitely doing it as an attack on a group of people who I see as enemies.




My problem is it's a dangerously oversimplified outlook that has an explicitly authoritarian leaning. My problem with your view is that you're complicating things that aren't complicated.




Again, I'm not going to touch that. It's the same thing that you said to me.




The most accurate political spectrum involves a double-axis graph with four quadrants, like the test that's floating around here, I'm sure you've seen it. However, this is cumbersome for purposes of conversation. I simply used the generally accepted terms to facilitate communication. The single-axis spectrum goes from left to right, generally, authoritarian and libertarian. (Note; 'libertarian' in the sense of the actual, historical meaning of the word, not the new American definition.) Fascism would be at the ultimate extreme end of the right half, with Anarchism being the end of the left hemisphere. I prefer a free and democratic society where we have a struggle of ideas, wheras you're favoring a more authoritarian prohibition on certain ideas. So, yes, according to the historical definition, you are to the right of me on this issue. That is what I meant.

The commonly accepted single axis political spectrum puts anti-state communists, state communists, and anarchists on the far-Left, liberals/Democrats left-of-center, centrists in the center (obvz lol), neo-cons/Republicans right-of-center, fascists and monarchists on the far-Right. The single axis political spectrum is not about authoritarian vs libertarian, or else Leninists would be considered on the right, and RevLeft wouldn't be called RevLeft. You have a very strange interpretation of politics.

Anyways, I don't see my position as that authoritarian, or authoritarian at all. I think you're taking a very simplistic approach. I am not advocating the use of the state to outlaw fascist ideas (not even possible anyways), nor am I suggesting the creation of permanent, or even semi-permanent, hierarchical structures, organizations, or organs to combat fascist violence.

[NGNM85]

I'm talking about taking political anti-fascism to it's logical conclusion, which ends up being an extremely liberal position. And one that, historically, has proven to be ineffective in stopping fascism.

I disagree on both counts. I’m not going to touch the first one, because it’s pointless.


I think it is fairly accurate. Where does this leave us?

Divergent. On opposite sides of the battle of ideas.



I'm just saying that your politics have so far been non-revolutionary.

That depends on how you define ‘revolution’, although, clearly you mean it in the most crude, literal sense. Are you a revolutionary or an Anarchist? There’s a difference. Anti-state violence should be context-dependent, if you actually give a shit about anybody besides yourself, which I would think is a prerequisite. First, the circumstances have to be sufficient to warrant it, one has to be reasonably positive there aren’t viable alternatives. Second, one has to be equally sure that said action won’t make things worse. It should be guided by the Hippocratic principle; ‘First, do no harm.’ In a police state like Russia, China, Iraq under Saddam, etc., revolutionary violence is essentially unavoidable as there really aren’t any other alternatives. However, in the west, we live in comparatively, very free societies. Therefore, there are other means available, as well.


This is the problem of anti-fascism. As revolutionaries intent on destroying capitalism, improving the working class condition within capitalism is not our goal. Sorry. Politically fighting fascism destroys revolution. The only way to get rid of fascism is to get rid of capitalism. That is our goal. This has nothing to do with being "bad ass," but has everything to do with not straying from revolutionary politics to mistakenly see one political aspect of capitalism as a bigger threat than another political aspect of capitalism.

Historically, the anti-fascist fight to preserve democracy, especially in revolutionary situations, has not only led to the destruction of said proletarian insurrections, but has proven to be completely incapable of removing fascism. The only response to fascism is a working class response to capitalism.

While you're off fighting for reforms that are a long way off (and in places like California with the on going budget crisis, are completely unrealistic), fascists will continue to target working class people. I don't know why you think you can ignore this. The only way to keep our neighborhoods safe is to physically kick fascists out, and not allow them any ground to stand on.

There’s the answer, you’re not an Anarchist, you’re a revolutionary. This is essentially saying; “I don’t care.”


How are you going to call yourself an Anarchist and then say that calling the "authorities" is ever a legitimate option?

Again; rape, murder, assault, etc., wouldn’t be any less impermissible in an Anarchist society.


I suggest attacking people that pose a threat to working class communities and to working class revolution. Don't confuse me for some thug.

Don’t behave like one.


I was definitely doing it as an attack on a group of people who I see as enemies.
My problem with your view is that you're complicating things that aren't complicated.

It’s actually very simple, just slightly less simple than you’re suggesting.


It's the same thing that you said to me.

No, I said you were ‘to the right of me’. My objection is specifically to the word ‘liberal’, which is useless in this case.


The commonly accepted single axis political spectrum puts anti-state communists, state communists, and anarchists on the far-Left, liberals/Democrats left-of-center, centrists in the center (obvz lol), neo-cons/Republicans right-of-center, fascists and monarchists on the far-Right. The single axis political spectrum is not about authoritarian vs libertarian, or else Leninists would be considered on the right, and RevLeft wouldn't be called RevLeft. You have a very strange interpretation of politics.

This is part of the failing of the single axis. However, it makes conversation a lot easier. Leninists/Stalinists, etc., actually would fit in better on the right end of the spectrum, as they have much more in common with the far right.


Anyways, I don't see my position as that authoritarian, or authoritarian at all. I think you're taking a very simplistic approach. I am not advocating the use of the state to outlaw fascist ideas (not even possible anyways), nor am I suggesting the creation of permanent, or even semi-permanent, hierarchical structures, organizations, or organs to combat fascist violence.

You’ve been somewhat murky as to what you actually want, however, you’re opposition to free speech is very clear.

[NGNM85]

You could just as easily say that not stopping fascists from speaking—giving them the opportunity to organize to impose their agenda on the rest of us—makes you as bad as them. If you care about freedom, don’t stand idly by while people mobilize to take it away.

This reminds me of the statement attributed to a senior military officer in Vietnam; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." What you're saying makes as much sense. That we can't risk the possibility of authoritarians taking our freedom so we have to beat them to it. It's absurd. This isn't an argument against freedom of speech, it makes no sense in that context, it's actually an argument for freedom of speech.


The bulk of racism takes place in subtle, everyday forms. But fascist visibility enables other right-wing groups to frame themselves as moderates, helping to legitimize the racist and xenophobic assumptions underlying their positions and the systems of power and privilege they defend. Taking a stand against fascists is an essential step toward discrediting the structures and values at the root of institutionalized racism. Here and worldwide, fascists still terrorize and murder people because of racial, religious, and sexual difference. It’s both naïve and disrespectful to their victims to gloss over the past and present realities of fascist violence.

Who is doing that?


Because fascists believe in acting directly to carry out their agenda rather than limiting themselves to the apparatus of representative democracy, they can be more dangerous proportionate to their numbers than other bigots. This makes it an especially high priority to deal with them swiftly.

Actually, I'm much more worried about the RNC. As I said, even the Teabagger crowd think they are freaks. They have no political power, whatsoever.


Oppressors already have their stage. The oppressed must steal it from them.

You keep talking in this kind of vague melodramatic language. I'm talking about specifics, about the real world.


The world is not a grand democratic forum where we can all sit at the table and argue it out until we agree on something

Unless we decide to make it so, which I would think would be a laudable goal.


- People are brutalized and attacked every day. To simply sit idly by while people drum up support for racism and fascism is the worst kind of complacency.

I don't know who you're talking to. Censorship is not the only alternative. That's a straw-man. I never suggested doing nothing, nor have I advocated pacifism. In fact, censorship is the exact opposite of confront neo-Nazism, it's hiding from it. It's intellectual cowardice.

[this is an invasion]

I disagree on both counts. I’m not going to touch the first one, because it’s pointless. History proves you wrong.


Divergent. On opposite sides of the battle of ideas. Word.


That depends on how you define ‘revolution’, although, clearly you mean it in the most crude, literal sense. Are you a revolutionary or an Anarchist? There’s a difference. Anti-state violence should be context-dependent, if you actually give a shit about anybody besides yourself, which I would think is a prerequisite. First, the circumstances have to be sufficient to warrant it, one has to be reasonably positive there aren’t viable alternatives. Second, one has to be equally sure that said action won’t make things worse. It should be guided by the Hippocratic principle; ‘First, do no harm.’ In a police state like Russia, China, Iraq under Saddam, etc., revolutionary violence is essentially unavoidable as there really aren’t any other alternatives. However, in the west, we live in comparatively, very free societies. Therefore, there are other means available, as well. I define revolution as "destroying" capitalism as both a form of socialization and as an economy. This is my primary concern. Not adhering to some pure ideological dogma.

On the issue of violence, I think we are going to have to deal with it regardless of whether we live in the USA or Iraq. Democracy turns to fascism when workers revolt.

I think if you actually read what I've been saying, and the reasons I've given for saying them, then you'd realizing that you'd have to be brain-dead to imply that I don't give a shit about anyone except myself.


There’s the answer, you’re not an Anarchist, you’re a revolutionary. This is essentially saying; “I don’t care.” I have not claimed to be an anarchist.

What am I saying that I don't care about? You're not making any sense.


Again; rape, murder, assault, etc., wouldn’t be any less impermissible in an Anarchist society. No I'm asking how you explain being an anarchist and against the state, but are willing to call the police on someone that would potentially result in their imprisonment. This is inherently un-anarchistic in every sense, and very authoritarian.


Don’t behave like one. I'm not. Defending my friends and neighbors isn't thug-lile.


It’s actually very simple, just slightly less simple than you’re suggesting. rofl


No, I said you were ‘to the right of me’. My objection is specifically to the word ‘liberal’, which is useless in this case. They are two meaningless statements.


This is part of the failing of the single axis. However, it makes conversation a lot easier. Leninists/Stalinists, etc., actually would fit in better on the right end of the spectrum, as they have much more in common with the far right. I agree. But that is not the commonly conception of the political spectrum.


You’ve been somewhat murky as to what you actually want, however, you’re opposition to free speech is very clear.

yep. I don't actually believe in any "inherent rights." My desire for communist revolution comes from my desire to be free, and the love I have for my friends, and my understanding of class society. I don't think it's something that we are entitled to, I think it's something that we have to take.

[Ele'ill]

Why deny them a platform?


From what I've seen they will rally support from non nazi's under the guise of genuine 'social issues' but then launch actions that are purely fascist and include only theselves to give the impression that they have large numbers of supporters.


Their only tactic is to confuse people by using them for their own agenda.

[Bud Struggle]

Why deny them a platform?


From what I've seen they will rally support from non nazi's under the guise of genuine 'social issues' but then launch actions that are purely fascist and include only theselves to give the impression that they have large numbers of supporters.

Their only tactic is to confuse people by using them for their own agenda.

If people are educated properly and instructed on the true nature of Facsism there won't be any confusion. The only confusion comes in when we make ourselves just like them by using their tactics.

The answer to authoritarianism isn't just some different kind of authoritarianism--it is freedom.

[Ele'ill]

If people are educated properly and instructed on the true nature of Facsism there won't be any confusion. The only confusion comes in when we make ourselves just like them by using their tactics.

The answer to authoritarianism isn't just some different kind of authoritarianism--it is freedom.


I'm not advocating the idea of not giving them a platform to execute them from but there are inherent dangers in doing this.

The problem is that they don't openly admit they are facist. It could take years and years for people to catch on but by then a lot of damage is done.

[RGacky3]

The problem is that they don't openly admit they are facist. It could take years and years for people to catch on but by then a lot of damage is done.

Not really, because people are smart enough to figure it out by themselves, fascist is just a word, its the ideas that count.

[NGNM85]

History proves you wrong.

I think your interpretation of history is flawed. Also, it’s interesting that Nazi ideologues come to the same conclusion.


define revolution as "destroying" capitalism as both a form of socialization and as an economy. This is my primary concern.

There is more than one way to do that. You’re also proving my point. You want your revolution, the little people be damned. You have your grand project and in the face of that the troubles of the working class are irrelevant.


Not adhering to some pure ideological dogma.

It isn’t what I’m doing. Human rights aren’t some complex theoretical construct, freedom of speech isn’t some alien thing, these are things that directly affect us and how we conduct ourselves. If you don’t care about human rights, one wonders what the point is?


On the issue of violence, I think we are going to have to deal with it regardless of whether we live in the USA or Iraq. Democracy turns to fascism when workers revolt.

Again, this is a very crude, literal interpretation.


think if you actually read what I've been saying, and the reasons I've given for saying them, then you'd realizing that you'd have to be brain-dead to imply that I don't give a shit about anyone except myself. [/FONT]
I have not claimed to be an anarchist.

What am I saying that I don't care about? You're not making any sense.

As Noam Chomsky put it;“..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete, let’s take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian.
…If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate.
..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”

In short, if you care about people, besides yourself, if there is a moral foundation to your opposition to the state, then you choose the lesser evil. There’s no shame in that. If you care about people you do whatever you can to ease their suffering. Dropping out accomplishes nothing. This holier-than-thou too-cool-for-school attitude is really just a pose for people who want to hang out at cafes and be seen as radical.


No I'm asking how you explain being an anarchist and against the state,

You have a very one-dimensional understanding of Anarchism.


but are willing to call the police on someone that would potentially result in their imprisonment. This is inherently un-anarchistic in every sense, and very authoritarian.

No, it isn’t. As I said, murder, rape, assault, etc., wouldn’t be any more permissible in an Anarchist society.


I'm not. Defending my friends and neighbors isn't thug-like.[/FONT]
Rofl

If we were actually talking about defense, real defense, there wouldn’t be anything to discuss. No, the issue here is a preemptive strike, taking action against people who haven’t actually done anything, except talk.


They are two meaningless statements.

No, the word ‘liberal’ has lost all meaning on this website, it’s so overused and incorrectly used and misunderstood that even when used properly it detracts from the conversation. The basic concepts of “Left” and “Right” are better understood.


I agree. But that is not the commonly conception of the political spectrum.

It’s a common mistake.


yep. I don't actually believe in any "inherent rights." My desire for communist revolution comes from my desire to be free, and the love I have for my friends, and my understanding of class society. I don't think it's something that we are entitled to, I think it's something that we have to take.

Just because you are deprived of your rights, doesn’t mean you aren’t entitled to them.

[Sam_b]

I'm a bit too busy to make a reply, but I didn't think i'd see the day that a so-called anarchist says the need for a class-based analysis of fighting fascism is 'confusing the issue'.

[NGNM85]

I'm a bit too busy to make a reply, but I didn't think i'd see the day that a so-called anarchist says the need for a class-based analysis of fighting fascism is 'confusing the issue'.

This is really part of a communist tendency to reduce absolutely everything to economics. It contributes nothing to conversation. You had no relevent point, it was just muddying the water, so to speak. The issue is freedom of speech, it isn't that complicated.

[Sam_b]

Issues such a freedom of speech and the rise of fascism are overwhelmingly class based. Rather than say this is a 'communist tendency', I think you'll find most of the anarchists on here - no, wait, most anarchists (including Emma Goldman who you referenced in this thread I believe) would agree.

[TheHazard]

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, and even I have to say, I don't get why, even in this topic, which is intended for everyone who doesn't agree with most people on RevLeft, fascists aren't allowed to speak their minds. Yes, their opinions are sometimes (read: usually) stupid, but they have a right to them.

Just an opinion.

[Ele'ill]

I'm a bit too busy to make a reply, but I didn't think i'd see the day that a so-called anarchist says the need for a class-based analysis of fighting fascism is 'confusing the issue'.

Is this a reference to what I said?

[Bud Struggle]

Issues such a freedom of speech and the rise of fascism are overwhelmingly class based. Rather than say this is a 'communist tendency', I think you'll find most of the anarchists on here - no, wait, most anarchists (including Emma Goldman who you referenced in this thread I believe) would agree.

(BTW Sam--I enjoy almost all of your posts--except this one.)

Freedom of speech ISN'T class based--it's for everyone--Kings, Bourgeois and Proletarians--and that's what makes the dynamic so interesting. It makes us all equals--so there is no class when everyone has a say. It's all about the "say."

When everyone has a say--there is no class. That's the real Anarchy.

[Sam_b]

it's for everyone

So I can happily go into work tomorrow and tell my boss what I really think of him then, right?

[Bud Struggle]

So I can happily go into work tomorrow and tell my boss what I really think of him then, right?

Yea.

If business is done right. Here's the Capitalist's plan (real Capitalists--not corporate shills,) tell me how I/we can make more money and we'll ALL make out. Not just me--not just you--ALL OF US can make more money if we all work together.

Baa baa baa ba ba ba 21st century BUSINESSMAN---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Yo3FJDrbc

[Imposter Marxist]

Yea.

If business is done right. Here's the Capitalist's plan (real Capitalists--not corporate shills,) tell me how I/we can make more money and we'll ALL make out. Not just me--not just you--ALL OF US can make more money if we all work together.

Baa baa baa ba ba ba 21st century BUSINESSMAN---

g8Yo3FJDrbc


I love King Crimson. But no. As the Crackbonist's say, "Cuttem up"

[Sam_b]

Yea

Sure. If I do it in reality, I get disciplined/fired/my life made hell. We don't live in a society where 'business is done properly' and to be quite honest, business is being done properly in the mindset of the ruling class because it is exactly these instances that help keep workers down and low on confidence.

I think this argument is helped by my position of being against freedom of speech in the liberal quasi-democratic sense that some apparent 'anarchists' here are cheerleading. We're not talking of stopping people's rights to hold an opinion - Stormfront goons can say to each other whatever the fuck they like in my opinion. My politics will be against it though. However, when they are out campaigning, making speeches, organising - knowing very well from both history and practice that these people are out to destroy the basis of the working class itself - that we intervene to protect our communities and protect our class.

This also helps me not have to give ridiculous liberal arguentation that freedom of speech in the sense that a certain user sees it as undisputed fact is great, but if you say certain things like 'fire' in a theatre that is bad because the state's law makes a distinguishment and it is a 'criminal' offence - and yet again the so-called 'anarchist' stands behind distinctions made by the bourgeois state without questioning with iota this concept of some sort of 'freedom' that has never existed and never will exist.

I think you're all racist and holocaust deniers, every single one of you. I don't have any shred of evidence to suggest it, but hey its my freedom of speech to perpetuate this, right?

[NGNM85]

Issues such a freedom of speech and the rise of fascism are overwhelmingly class based. Rather than say this is a 'communist tendency', I think you'll find most of the anarchists on here - no, wait, most anarchists (including Emma Goldman who you referenced in this thread I believe) would agree.

Most Anarchists would be in strident opposition against any attempt to silence free speech. That has been the historical trend. Trying to couch you’re firm opposition to free speech in fuzzy-minded class-war rhetoric changes nothing, it’s just a distraction.


I think this argument is helped by my position of being against freedom of speech in the liberal quasi-democratic sense

That’s a mischaracterization.


that some apparent 'anarchists' here are cheerleading.

This is the same position that Anarchists have taken time and time again. There’s nothing new about it.


We're not talking of stopping people's rights to hold an opinion

No, you’re talking about preventing them from being able to express their opinions. Even in the most brutal police state people always have their opinions, that's a nonstatement.


Stormfront goons can say to each other whatever the fuck they like in my opinion. My politics will be against it though. However, when they are out campaigning, making speeches, organising - knowing very well from both history and practice that these people are out to destroy the basis of the working class itself - that we intervene to protect our communities and protect our class.

If censorship is the best idea that one can come up with it is only a testament to one’s stupidity or laziness.


This also helps me not have to give ridiculous liberal argumentation

I’d argue with that, but it’s no use. Again, this is a position one can find in anarchist literature, going way back.


that freedom of speech in the sense that a certain user sees it as undisputed fact is great, but if you say certain things like 'fire' in a theatre that is bad because the state's law makes a distinguishment and it is a 'criminal' offence - and yet again the so-called 'anarchist' stands behind distinctions made by the bourgeois state without questioning with iota this concept of some sort of 'freedom' that has never existed and never will exist.

There’s a lot of confusion packed into such a small space. Of course yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is bad, that’s a given. However, there are more fundamental issues. Like Chomsky said, just because the state is an illegitimate institution does not mean it does not serve legitimate purposes, or that everything it does is inherently evil. As I said, murder and rape would be equally impermissible in an Anarchist society. These activities aren’t illegal because it suits the needs of the master class, or some bullshit, murder is illegal because it’s morally wrong and antithetical to civilization. As I said, some of the things the state does serve legitimate needs, and actually make sense.

Freedom of speech absolutely exists, in fact the United States is probably the most progressive country in the world when it comes to free speech. Other countries enforce blasphemy laws, etc. Even England, Canada, France, etc., have substantially more regressive and restrictive laws regarding speech. This isn’t theoretical. In the United States you can say or write virtually anything you want. The laws aren’t perfect, but it’s damn close. The only regulations are with regard to advertisements by corporations, which have to follow certain standards, I don’t think anybody here really cares about that, hard-core pornography, which is legal, as long as it involves consenting adults, but it’s restricted to certain venues, and the “Fire!” thing. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is excluded from speech, along with death threats, under the justification of “imminent lawless action”, meaning the speaker desires to incite a criminal act then and there, and they are likely to do so. It requires both an expression of an immediate desire, and a commitment to action. These are very specific criteria.


I think you're all racist and holocaust deniers, every single one of you. I don't have any shred of evidence to suggest it, but hey its my freedom of speech to perpetuate this, right?

Absolutely. However, depending on how much you say this and how often, we might be able to sue for libel, but that’s a civil case, it isn’t criminal. Moreover, that only works if none of us are celebrities, then you can say absolutely anything because public figures are exempt. That doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences. For instance, how people perceive you as a person. You can make any claim you want, but you have to be able to defend it. The more serious or extreme the claim the greater the burden of proof you’re obligated to meet. Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean anybody’s going to take you seriously.

[RGacky3]

tell me how I/we can make more money and we'll ALL make out. Not just me--not just you--ALL OF US can make more money if we all work together.

Baa baa baa ba ba ba 21st century BUSINESSMAN---

Really? How's that worked in the real world?

[Sam_b]

Most Anarchists would be in strident opposition against any attempt to silence free speech. That has been the historical trend. Trying to couch you’re firm opposition to free speech in fuzzy-minded class-war rhetoric changes nothing, it’s just a distraction.


There is no such thing as free speech.


That’s a mischaracterization.

It really isn't.


This is the same position that Anarchists have taken time and time again. There’s nothing new about it.

That'll be the same anarchists who thought 'freedom of speech for Nazis' in 1930s Germany?


No, you’re talking about preventing them from being able to express their opinions. Even in the most brutal police state people always have their opinions, that's a nonstatement.

No i'm not. They can sit on Stormfront all they like. Myself and the rest of the movement will stop them from organising and intimidating our class.



If censorship is the best idea that one can come up with it is only a testament to one’s stupidity or laziness

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about if you confuse no-platformism with mass censorship.


There’s a lot of confusion packed into such a small space. Of course yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is bad, that’s a given. However, there are more fundamental issues. Like Chomsky said, just because the state is an illegitimate institution does not mean it does not serve legitimate purposes, or that everything it does is inherently evil. As I said, murder and rape would be equally impermissible in an Anarchist society. These activities aren’t illegal because it suits the needs of the master class, or some bullshit, murder is illegal because it’s morally wrong and antithetical to civilization. As I said, some of the things the state does serve legitimate needs, and actually make sense.


It seems strange that you would jump to the side of a state using the words 'criminal'.


Freedom of speech absolutely exists

Except that you've never actually defined it apart from 'say anything/write anything you want'. The only apparent existent of your 'freedom of speech'. Again, I cannot go into work tomorrow and tell my boss what I think of him.


However, depending on how much you say this and how often, we might be able to sue for libel

Give me a break. Jesus.

It would be interesting to have some more anarchist post here and point out their particular positions to no-platformism, which i'll wager would be vastly different to yours.

[NGNM85]

There is no such thing as free speech.

Thankfully, in the US, there is. Whether you want to exercise it or not is up to you, but you absolutely have it.


It really isn't.

I’d debate this, but the word ‘liberal’ is a hopeless impasse, so I’ll just drop that. I’ll also reiterate this is the same position you can go back and find in Anarchist literature, like Emma Goldman, etc., up to present day.


That'll be the same anarchists who thought 'freedom of speech for Nazis' in 1930s Germany?

This is a nonsense statement. First, it indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of freedom of speech. Basic human rights apply to all people, equally, even people you personally dislike. That’s what Niemoller was pointing out. The problem with the Nazis wasn’t that there was a public venue for them to speak, it’s a failure of the opposition, and it also had to do with the economic and political chaos created by the end of the Great War and the deeply unfair and destructive provisions in the Versailles treaty, but that’s a bigger issue. Incidentally, upon seizing power, one of the first actions by the Nazi party was to severely limit freedom of expression. I’m unaware of any contemporaneous Anarchist literature on the subject, however, Goldman and most of the leading Anarchists at the time bitterly condemned the Bolsheviks for criminalizing speech.


No i'm not. They can sit on Stormfront all they like. Myself and the rest of the movement will stop them from organising and intimidating our class.

Again, nobody ever questioned the right for people to act when they are actually threatened. That doesn’t even bear discussion, you don’t have to justify it. This is not self-defense. It’s censorship, and it’s intellectual cowardice. If you want to beat ideas, especially bad ideas, you don’t hide from them via censorship, you confront them, and you come up with better ideas.


I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about if you confuse no-platformism with mass censorship.

At best you’re just talking about a sort of grassroots censorship. Either way, you want to shut people up, and keep the public discourse limited to acceptable points of view. It’s still censorship. It’s also intellectual cowardice.


It seems strange that you would jump to the side of a state using the words 'criminal'.

Nobody’s doing that. See, part of the problem is this one-dimensional outlook. Second, the word ‘criminal’ does not necessarily to refer to any specific system of law. However, in this case, it’s irrelevant, because it would be equally ‘criminal’ in an Anarchist society, just like rape and murder.


Except that you've never actually defined it apart from 'say anything/write anything you want'.

That’s about it, yeah.



Again, I cannot go into work tomorrow and tell my boss what I think of him.

You absolutely can, but you will probably get fired. That really has almost nothing to do with freedom of speech because your workplace is not part of the commons, it’s a private business. When you are there you are acting in an official capacity, at the behest of your employer, so you’re expected to actually do your job, and behave according to policy. That is in no way an infringement on you’re right to free speech. I would say you’re a wage slave and you’re probably being exploited in an unfair economic system, but that’s a different ball of wax.


Give me a break. Jesus.

That isn’t a threat of any kind, I’m just explaining. You can say whatever you want as long as it doesn’t fall under ‘immanent lawless action’, which is just about limited to explicit death threats and the “Fire!” thing, you can say whatever you want. You might get sued, but you will not go to jail. It’s not a crime. Again, for public figures even that doesn’t apply, that’s how those supermarket tabloids can print stuff like “Martha Stewart is a Vampire!”, (This might be true.) or “Richard Simmons Fathers Alien Love Child!”, because they’re not liable.


It would be interesting to have some more anarchist post here and point out their particular positions to no-platformism, which i'll wager would be vastly different to yours.

How about Noam Chomsky?

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.”-“Manufacturing Consent” (The documentary.)

“With regard to freedom of speech, there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.”-“Chomsky on Anarchism”

[Adi Shankara]

can I speak for everyone when I call NGNM85 a Ron Paulite idiot?

[NGNM85]

can I speak for everyone when I call NGNM85 a Ron Paulite idiot?

First of all, that's incredibly childlike and unproductive. Given that you've already taken it upon yourself to spread deliberate lies about me I don't have high hopes for any meaningful dialogue, but I'm going to go ahead and debunk this, anyway. I have no philosophical or historical connection or affiliation with the so-called American 'Libertarians", including Se. Paul. Senator Paul is a strict constitutionalist, pro-life, and a proponant of real free market capitalism, destroying all social safety nets and essentially all barriers to private corporations. I have never endorsed these things, I am none of these things, I don't want to be associated with any of these things. Back to the subject at hand...

[Adi Shankara]

I have never endorsed these things, I am none of these things, I don't want to be associated with any of these things. Back to the subject at hand...

Then it'd be in your best interest to drop the Islamophobia and Western Euro-supremacy you spew.

[#FF0000]

Would you consider a group of people (not the state) organizing to counter-protest a fascist rally to be infringing on free speech?

[NGNM85]

Would you consider a group of people (not the state) organizing to counter-protest a fascist rally to be infringing on free speech?

No, not as long as you aren't oppressing the other side in any way or preventing them from speaking. That would actually be a constructive idea, and it's confronting the opposition, as opposed to hiding from them by censoring them.

[#FF0000]

No, not as long as you aren't oppressing the other side in any way or preventing them from speaking. That would actually be a constructive idea, and it's confronting the opposition, as opposed to hiding from them by censoring them.

As far as I know, that's what the "no platform" policy generally means and what anti-fascists support doing, unless someone wants to correct me?

[NGNM85]

As far as I know, that's what the "no platform" policy generally means and what anti-fascists support doing, unless someone wants to correct me?

No, 'no platform" means shutting them down, completely. Here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform

[Glenn Beck]

No, 'no platform" means shutting them down, completely. Here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform

I fail to see the problem

[Ele'ill]

It isn't only the leftist anti facists that shut the nazis down and refused them space.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's important to look at rights, not in their idealized and abstract form, but as they play-out in the reality of class-society. I think we all want MORE rights and freedom for everyone. But also, as Revolutionaries, that means that we are going to be "infringing" on a lot of the rights of oppressors - the right of business and the capitalist state to have the monopoly on the means of production for example. A much bigger "sin" against rights from a capitalist perspective.

[RGacky3]

the right of business and the capitalist state to have the monopoly on the means of production for example. A much bigger "sin" against rights from a capitalist perspective.

Yeah but those are not universal rights, thus not actual rights.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah but those are not universal rights, thus not actual rights.How are any rights universal and not social?

[Jazzhands]

The symbolism isn't banned any more, now that they don't see Communism as a threat. Back in the 20s and the 50s it was; in the 1920s South Dakota even changed its flag because it was red with a white star in the center (they thought it looked too Commy). Back then you could be brought before a court for having supposed links to Leftist parties and even jailed or blacklisted; it happened all the time. They don't do it anymore because they don't perceive Communism or Socialist as having any potential in the world. If it came to the forefront in a major country, they would do precisely the same thing all over again.

They've never banned fascist symbolism or fascist party activity. Thousands of proud Americans happily waved around swastikas during their rallies even during World War II, nationalist and fascist parties in the USA openly supported Hitler's Germany. There was never a "fascist scare" here in America, there was never panic or mass arrest caused by fear of fascism taking power. They came after the Reds, and still do in smaller ways. The size of their reaction is proportional to the success of the world revolution.

I read in a bourgeois history book (:scared: THE HORROR) that said the story of Robin Hood was banned in public schools because it had socialist themes. The Cincinatti Reds had to change their name to the Red Legs at the same time.

Anyway, the reason I support no platform for fascism is because the essence of fascism is based in criminality even by bourgeois standards. They're basically asking for it. You don't say, "We're gunna go an kill them there mexicans cuz they took aur jobs" and then claim free speech when the cops arrest your ass for making threats. I don't support a ban on symbols, though. It makes them easier to identify that way. I also don't support the state having the right to silence them, although in the aforementioned case that would be a good thing. In terms of just screaming about Jewish conspiracies without making actual threats, I think the people themselves should stamp them out, not the state.

[NGNM85]

I fail to see the problem

I'll say it again....

The right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society. It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.

Believing in freedom of speech means believing in it for ideas that you find objectionable. Nobody goes to prison for supporting the status quo.

Criminalizing speech is fascist, authoritarian, and tantamount to burning books, which is just another means of shutting down free speech. This is the death knell for individual rights. Therefore, Anarchists should oppose it.

Second, Anarchists should oppose it out of hand because historically Anarchists have been the victims of such crusades. Like Thomas Paine, who was nearly executed once the new order was established and decided revolutionaries were no longer desirable.

Criminalizing free speech is bad because it’s tactically unsound. It just doesn’t work that well. In fact, it can very easily backfire and make the target more sympathetic. You don’t defeat bad ideas by silencing them. You defeat them by holding them under a spotlight for all to see. Especially bad ideas like neo-Nazism or holocaust denial should not be threatening because they are so easily countered. I despise religion, but I don’t want to throw all religious people into internment camps. I want new rules of conversation, I want to have a public, critical dialogue, because I know their ideas can’t possibly hold up.

Lastly, virtually every leap forward in human progress, every visionary has drastically challenged the fundamental beliefs of the day, in art, culture, science, etc. If we silence the Faurisson’s we’re likely to silence the Galileo’s as well. Dissent is healthy, and moreover it’s fundamental to Anarchism.

[727Goon]

I think this is being over complicated. I think it's about proportional response, if fascists are hanging out in your neighborhood but aren't being violent or intimidating people, just harass them verbally. If fascists are actually physically harassing people or intimidating people, which is almost always the case, violence is necessary. There's no need to do away with freedom of speech, really.

[this is an invasion]

I have the feeling that NGNM is speaking from a position of complete inexperience. You can read Chomsky all you want (seems like you read just him), but honestly, Chomsky is to anarchism what Hilary Clinton is to anarchism. Seriously, Chomsky's understanding of the state and revolution is stupid. The welfare state and its "progressive" reforms do not do anything for the working class in the context of revolution. They are, in fact, impediments to revolution entirely because they push people apart by creating even more dependence on the state, rather than bring people together. Until you realize that, you will be entirely irrelevant to the working class.

Just like Chomsky.



Also, you should change your custom title to "Infinitely Liberal." LOL

P.S. Did it cross anyone's mind that anarchists were for freedom of speech in the USSR because it was in their interest as a group of opposition to the Bolsheviks? Not to mention that maybe anarchist theory, its understanding of the way capital and the state interact, and the way the Left operates may have changed since then?

The anarchist/anti-state movement has had enough experience throughout history that we ought to understand that supporting reforms, more democratic leaders, etc in the hope of keeping away from fascism is a complete failure. We should also understand that supporting the state at all, regardless of whether it is "nice" or not will in no way bring us any closer to true proletarian revolution.

[Glenn Beck]

The right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society.

I could do without the teary eyed religious sounding tone and rhetoric but alright


It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.

No it's not


Believing in freedom of speech means believing in it for ideas that you find objectionable. Nobody goes to prison for supporting the status quo.

I don't care


Criminalizing speech is fascist

No


, authoritarian,

Yes


and tantamount to burning books,

No


This is the death knell for individual rights. Therefore, Anarchists should oppose it.

I'm not an anarchist, N/A


Criminalizing free speech is bad because it’s tactically unsound. It just doesn’t work that well.

Yeah right, it works fucking great. Only in your fantasy world where we live in an idealized scholarly debate where the best argument wins is censorship and repression tactically unsound. Repression works, if it didn't work then the ruling elites would not resort to it constantly or else they would have been overthrown long ago.


In fact, it can very easily backfire and make the target more sympathetic.

Only when done from a position of weakness, or in the face of an ideological counteroffensive from your enemy. Otherwise it works: see the conventional wisdom on Communism in our dear beloved country, and this is with a high degree of "free speech". From your own logic Communism and Anarchism must be bad ideas because they are widely rejected despite minimal if any formal censorship in the United States.


You don’t defeat bad ideas by silencing them.

Yes you do, exposure is simply a possible tactic to achieve this goal: a silencing by shame and ridicule. Exposure works by building an ideological hegemony against the criticized idea and marshaling public opinion to informally sanction it.


Especially bad ideas like neo-Nazism or holocaust denial should not be threatening because they are so easily countered.

Easily countered after being materially destroyed and outlawed in the places where they receive the most sympathy and support. It took a bloody war and a harsh denazification process for Nazism to become the joke it is widely perceived as today. They didn't just open a public forum rattling off "these are all the reasons the Nazis were wrong", they fucking hanged and shot Nazis in droves and banned them from holding positions of public influence. The USA was exempt from this because the USA was largely exempt from having Nazis in it.


I despise religion, but I don’t want to throw all religious people into internment camps.

Good to hear


I want new rules of conversation, I want to have a public, critical dialogue, because I know their ideas can’t possibly hold up.

You can find this at your local university


Lastly, virtually every leap forward in human progress, every visionary has drastically challenged the fundamental beliefs of the day, in art, culture, science, etc. If we silence the Faurisson’s we’re likely to silence the Galileo’s as well. Dissent is healthy, and moreover it’s fundamental to Anarchism.

Faurisson is no Galileo. Your idealistic account is completely missing any kind of human element. Galileo wasn't repressed just because the Church were dicks but because what he was doing threatened their power and authority. Any established order will seek to repress acts and expressions that threaten it, encourage those that strengthen it, and typically ignore those that are indifferent. It's simply the way of things.

[Sir Comradical]

Your avatar is disturbing. It doesn't go well with your username.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

It is easy for 'white leftists' to argue in favor of free speech, giving fascists a platform etc. etc., simply because they know they're never going to be at the receiving end, only the brown-skinned folks.:rolleyes:

If a fascist takes to the streets, who suffers? Not the white folks but some random brown person who is trying to feed his family. If a fascist makes a speech calling for the deportation of immigrants, again who experiences humiliation? Not the white folk but the unfortunate brown people again.

So whether the fascist is peaceful and expresses himself through speeches and writing or whether he resorts to violence, the result is the same: it is only the brown people who are going to suffer, and therefore it is so very easy for 'white leftists' to wax eloquent on freedom of expression and all the rest.:rolleyes:

[LebenIstKrieg]

It is easy for 'white leftists' to argue in favor of free speech, giving fascists a platform etc. etc., simply because they know they're never going to be at the receiving end, only the brown-skinned folks.:rolleyes:

If a fascist takes to the streets, who suffers? Not the white folks but some random brown person who is trying to feed his family. If a fascist makes a speech calling for the deportation of immigrants, again who experiences humiliation? Not the white folk but the unfortunate brown people again.

So whether the fascist is peaceful and expresses himself through speeches and writing or whether he resorts to violence, the result is the same: it is only the brown people who are going to suffer, and therefore it is so very easy for 'white leftists' to wax eloquent on freedom of expression and all the rest.:rolleyes:

Your a fucking Idiot who has no idea what your talking about and should commit suicide.

Infraction issued for gross flaming - Bob The Builder

[Sam_b]

It is easy for 'white leftists' to argue in favor of free speech, giving fascists a platform etc. etc., simply because they know they're never going to be at the receiving end, only the brown-skinned folks

Not true. Fascist movements have put to death and imprisoned thousands of socialists, anarchists, trade unionists, and members of the LGBT community.


Your a fucking Idiot who has no idea what your talking about and should commit suicide.

Welcome to my latest neg rep. That is atrocious and totally uncalled for.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Not true. Fascist movements have put to death and imprisoned thousands of socialists, anarchists, trade unionists, and members of the LGBT community.

I understand that, and I am sorry I didn't express myself properly. All I am saying is: a brown-skinned person is most likely to suffer at the hands of fascists not because of ideology or anything but simply owing to his skin color; that makes it even worse. Why?

Because at least the white anarchist (or trade unionist or socialist or whoever) can pretend he's not an anarchist anymore (or a trade unionist etc.). At least, he has an option that could save his skin, so he is not in as much danger as the darker person who is going to be targeted irrespective of his ideological leanings.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Your a fucking Idiot who has no idea what your talking about and should commit suicide.

Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he's doing.:)

EDIT: On second thought, Father, he knows exactly what he's doing.;)

[Bud Struggle]

Easily countered after being materially destroyed and outlawed in the places where they receive the most sympathy and support. It took a bloody war and a harsh denazification process for Nazism to become the joke it is widely perceived as today. They didn't just open a public forum rattling off "these are all the reasons the Nazis were wrong", they fucking hanged and shot Nazis in droves and banned them from holding positions of public influence. The USA was exempt from this because the USA was largely exempt from having Nazis in it.



The reason the USA was exempt from having any significant numbers of Nazis in it was because of its long tradition of having free speech. Where Nazism took the strongest hold was in countries that had long traditions of feudal totalitarian governments with strict controls on speech and the press. In America where anyone could (for the most part) proclaim any political affiliation one wanted--Nazism was nothing more than a home for sociopaths and other disturbed people--and when the facts of the system are rationally explained, really are the only people who would find that ideology appealing.

[Hiero]

Because it is not a legitimate view in a society that promotes pluralism and safety.

[Hit The North]

I'll say it again....

The right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society. It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.


There's always a problem when it comes to trading in "rights". Individuals also have the right not to be de-humanised, oppressed and murdered.

By acceding to the rights of fascists to mobilise, you increase the likelihood of certain, vulnerable groups becoming victims of de-humanising rhetoric and actual oppression and murder.

It is the duty of all those who wish to promote genuine equality - and by that, I mean going beyond the abstract formality of 'freedom of speech' - to resist the spread of fascist activity which seeks to entrench and extend already inequitable relations.

As the bourgeois philosopher A.C. Grayling argued recently, in a tolerant society some creeds of intolerance cannot be tolerated.

The fact that this presents us with a paradox is only further evidence that bourgeois notions of freedom of speech are embedded in a contradiction between the formal freedoms of class society and the material realities of exploitation upon which those societies are founded.

[Bud Struggle]

Because it is not a legitimate view in a society that promotes pluralism and safety.

While that's true--that's not the problem. The real issue is who is going to decide what is good for society to talk about what what isn't? You? Me?

You can't limit discussion of Fascists without, at least in part, becomming Fascist yourself.

[Hit The North]

Freedom of speech ISN'T class based--it's for everyone--Kings, Bourgeois and Proletarians--and that's what makes the dynamic so interesting. It makes us all equals--so there is no class when everyone has a say. It's all about the "say."

When everyone has a say--there is no class. That's the real Anarchy.

You seem to be missing the point that in even the most liberal capitalist societies, freedom of speech is not equally distributed.

At the formal level every individual may have the right to express an opinion, but the opinion of Joe Shmoe cannot match the volume and persuasiveness of Rupert Murdoch's opinion as it is transmitted through Fox News, for instance.

In a society where the instruments of mass communication are in the hands of a corporate media oligarchy, then the claim that freedom of speech has some egalitarian effect is purely utopian.

[Bud Struggle]

You seem to be missing the point that in even the most liberal capitalist societies, freedom of speech is not equally distributed.

At the formal level every individual may have the right to express an opinion, but the opinion of Joe Shmoe cannot match the volume and persuasiveness of Rupert Murdoch's opinion as it is transmitted through Fox News, for instance.

In a society where the instruments of mass communication are in the hands of a corporate media oligarchy, then the claim that freedom of speech has some egalitarian effect is purely utopian.

All true but becomming less true every day. The mass media will always reflect the status quo--but I can always find out the latest goings on in the world of Aryan hate with a few clicks of mouse. Same with the shenannigans of the Communists. All this should be completely available and the ability to become a Nazi or a Communist or a Tea Bagger or a Jehovah's Whitness and expouse their cause should always be available to me--as long as I have those freedoms I don't see how I could complain.

[RGacky3]

The mass media will always reflect the status quo

Not really, the mass media will always reflect the corporate status quo, not the countries status quo, case in point, the coverage of health reform. If 5 corporatists say Public health = Nazi Germany, and 95 regulare people want it, the mass media will say "public health, is it nazi germany, lets see what both sides have to say?"

[Hit The North]

All true but becoming less true every day.

Actually in terms of mass media, as with all sectors of a capitalist economy, the tendency is towards monopoly. In 1985 an estimated 50 companies owned 90% of mass media outlets in America; today, U.S. mass media is heavily dominated by six massive corporations:
http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

Even the greatest internet blog is but a grain of sand on the beach of the world wide web, so it's chances of having the influence of CBS, TimeWarner or Disney is practically nil. Meanwhile, these giant corporations also inhabit large chunks of the internet.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^I'm not denying any of that, I'm just saying that all the information is out ther for anyone out find out anything they wish.

Also, all these news organizations are sales orientated--they give the people what they want so they can get high ratings to sell their soap. Fox is the industry leader because it gives more people the news they are looking for. More people want that Conservative type of news than want anything else. The Liberal radio and newspaper outlets for the most part fail.

Secondly, it isn't news outlets that really influence voters--it's their upbringing and their parents. Religion plays a big part, too.

News outlets give people what they want in the first place. Here's a list of American talk show hosts--all Conservative till #10. They are successful because people listen.

http://talkers.com/online/?p=267

People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. If a Communist could sell air time--he's be on the list, too.

[Glenn Beck]

The reason the USA was exempt from having any significant numbers of Nazis in it was because of its long tradition of having free speech. Where Nazism took the strongest hold was in countries that had long traditions of feudal totalitarian governments with strict controls on speech and the press. In America where anyone could (for the most part) proclaim any political affiliation one wanted--Nazism was nothing more than a home for sociopaths and other disturbed people--and when the facts of the system are rationally explained, really are the only people who would find that ideology appealing.

No Bud, I'm sorry, that is fucking stupid. Fascism is a complex historical phenomenon that grew out of the particular conditions of several European countries that has absolutely not a goddamn thing to do with their 'traditional' lack of free speech and everything to do with the way nationhood was consolidated in these nations, their later capitalist development making an aggressive policy of industrialization and expansionism necessary in order to compete with the old imperialist powers that had by then already carved up the entire world, and the consolidation of the state against destabilizing forces like the massive worker's movements that existed in these countries. For starters.

You really understand very little. There are vast quantities of people who find fascistic and other far-right ideologies extremely appealing and find them to be the best articulation of their position and perspective on the world and the best vehicle to achieve their goals. The situation is a lot more complicated than them just being "mistaken", as if there were some kind of universally correct political viewpoint that works in every context.

[Bud Struggle]

No Bud, I'm sorry, that is fucking stupid. Fascism is a complex historical phenomenon that grew out of the particular conditions of several European countries that has absolutely not a goddamn thing to do with their 'traditional' lack of free speech and everything to do with the way nationhood was consolidated in these nations, their later capitalist development making an aggressive policy of industrialization and expansionism necessary in order to compete with the old imperialist powers that had by then already carved up the entire world, and the consolidation of the state against destabilizing forces like the massive worker's movements that existed in these countries. For starters. Well, that's good news! Since none of that is going on at the present time--I guess we have nothing to worry about with Fascism. :) There certanly aren't any massive worker movements going on--that's for sure.

All kidding aside--we can't fight Fascism by becoming Fascists--and that is what you are proposing. When we demolish free speech, when we take over what people say and read and learn and hear--we become tyrants. Honestly, if anyone had any question about American democratic freedoms--all they would have to do is read this thread and they'd be on the Capitalist side of the barricades when the Revolution comes.


You really understand very little. There are vast quantities of people who find fascistic and other far-right ideologies extremely appealing and find them to be the best articulation of their position and perspective on the world and the best vehicle to achieve their goals. The situation is a lot more complicated than them just being "mistaken", as if there were some kind of universally correct political viewpoint that works in every context. Are you sure you are a Communist? You don't trust the people--the Proletarians to make decisions for themselves. All this talk about "when the Revolution comes--oh, how we are going to be free," and then you don't trust the Proletarians to make competent decisions for themselves. The information has to be spoon fed so they will only decide the way YOU want then to decide. The only logical conclusion to this kind of Communism is the kind Kim Il Jong practices.

Without complete freedom Communism is meaningless.

[Glenn Beck]

Well, that's good news! Since none of that is going on at the present time--I guess we have nothing to worry about with Fascism. :) There certanly aren't any massive worker movements going on--that's for sure.

All kidding aside--we can't fight Fascism by becoming Fascists--and that is what you are proposing. When we demolish free speech, when we take over what people say and read and learn and hear--we become tyrants. Honestly, if anyone had any question about American democratic freedoms--all they would have to do is read this thread and they'd be on the Capitalist side of the barricades when the Revolution comes.

Are you sure you are a Communist? You don't trust the people--the Proletarians to make decisions for themselves. All this talk about "when the Revolution comes--oh, how we are going to be free," and then you don't trust the Proletarians to make competent decisions for themselves. The information has to be spoon fed so they will only decide the way YOU want then to decide. The only logical conclusion to this kind of Communism is the kind Kim Il Jong practices.

Without complete freedom Communism is meaningless.

It's such a fucking laugh for you to be accusing me of Fascism. You're a business owning affluent Catholic white male, if there's a serious social crisis in this country you will fucking run into the embrace of whatever movement or regime sprouts up to put down the subversive threat. Of course they will be putting down nothing but rabblerousers and rioters, and only to defend democracy and the Constitution.

I've met your counterparts from places like Chile and Argentina and it's the same fucking story. The military regime never fails to justify itself as defending the rights and virtues of the people.

[Bud Struggle]

It's such a fucking laugh for you to be accusing me of Fascism. You're a business owning affluent Catholic white male, if there's a serious social crisis in this country you will fucking run into the embrace of whatever movement or regime sprouts up to put down the subversive threat. Of course they will be putting down nothing but rabblerousers and rioters, and only to defend democracy and the Constitution.

I've met your counterparts from places like Chile and Argentina and it's the same fucking story. The military regime never fails to justify itself as defending the rights and virtues of the people.

I guess that ad hominem means that you are out of substantive arguments? :)

[#FF0000]

This thread is sort of exasperating. Do you people really think we have "free speech" in any meaningful sense of the term now?

[this is an invasion]

This thread is sort of exasperating. Do you people really think we have "free speech" in any meaningful sense of the term now?

Chomsky says we do.

[Glenn Beck]

I guess that ad hominem means that you are out of substantive arguments? :)

You're a disingenuous sophist with a bucket full of intentional fallacies of your own. You flatter yourself to think you put forth arguments to be taken seriously.

[Ele'ill]

We have freedom of speech in the United States because there are vast systems set up to make sure that 'freedom of speech' doesn't amount to any type of change.

We live in a country that allows voting to decide who gets to office with their ideas for change but once people get into office they often don't follow through- and during the entire fucking election process not once have I heard issues brought up that would get me to vote. Not once have I voted.

We have the right to demonstrate- in the designated steel-fenced in area surrounded by 10,000-20,000 riot police armed as a domestic military force with multiple media campaigns smearing against change while people are searched at random and arrested at random.

Our corporations are allowed to make mistakes and carry on with business as usual while our communities and our planet suffer catastrophic consequences. When a young black male makes a mistake for hanging on the curb and selling some marijuana- if he isn't shot by the police he is incarcerated for a horrific amount of time.

I'm so sick and tired of people talking about freedom. Freedom is a loophole issued to the handful of people that are causing the world's problems- not one of those people are poor.

[Glenn Beck]

This is just a moronic thread. No Platform isn't even any kind of official governmental censorship policy, it's a policy of civil organizations and a strategy by activists to avoid giving legitimacy to racist groups and their bigoted opinions by not engaging them publicly and pressuring other organizations to do the same, thus depriving them of a platform with which to express their viewpoints. The rationale is similar to that of boycotts and divestment campaigns, which I'm sure are also diabolical concoctions dreamt up by Kim Jong-Il.

[#FF0000]

Yeah exactly. I'm not sure why "free speech" ever came into this anyway.

[Bud Struggle]

You're a disingenuous sophist with a bucket full of intentional fallacies of your own. You flatter yourself to think you put forth arguments to be taken seriously.

May be, but I really don't think you Communists can ever sell your argument to the masses. You put yourself into a situation where an opponent of Communism can say to the Proletarians, "see, these guys don't trust you. They want to take away your cherished freedoms." And you'll be dead in the water. Most people love their freedom of speech or to take Best Mod's point, their perceived freedom of speech very seriously. Much more seriously than they take any threat of Fascism.

And yea the Fascists were bad guys and liked a lot of people but so did Attila the Hun--and nobody would want their rights taken away because the Golden hoard may appear someday.

This argument diminishes Communism in real world debate and it fractures Communism from the inside because I'm sure there are plenty of Anarchist and non-Authoritarian Communists that would disagree with your point.

You want to take away a real right now because you see a probable threat in the future. From a practical point of view your position is just untenable.

I guess as a Capitalist I see things in terms of what sells and what doesn't and I don't see the magic here.

[Dimentio]

The problem with giving the state the power to take away the freedom of speech of fascists is that it is equal to giving the state power to take away the freedom of speech of everyone. In the 90's, some of the young conservatives of Sweden wanted to illegalise socialist agitation because of "hate crime" against the affluent.

[#FF0000]

The problem with giving the state the power to take away the freedom of speech of fascists is that it is equal to giving the state power to take away the freedom of speech of everyone. In the 90's, some of the young conservatives of Sweden wanted to illegalise socialist agitation because of "hate crime" against the affluent.

Nobody is saying that's a good idea though!

[Bud Struggle]

Nobody is saying that's a good idea though!

You will be after the Revolution. :)

(And that's how I'm looking at this debate--in terms of post Revolutionary politics.)

[Ele'ill]

May be, but I really don't think you Communists can ever sell your argument to the masses. You put yourself into a situation where an opponent of Communism can say to the Proletarians, "see, these guys don't trust you. They want to take away your cherished freedoms." And you'll be dead in the water. Most people love their freedom of speech or to take Best Mod's point, their perceived freedom of speech very seriously. Much more seriously than they take any threat of Fascism.

Recently there has been discussion between opposing ideologies where I live- there are people- right-wing conservatives- that are feeling the affects of police violence and feeling the affects of natural disasters.

They are talking openly with people on the left about these issues. No it isn't a love fest but it's a start. When ex police officers attend spokes council meetings on why the police are killing members of their community it's a step forward.

It no longer is about what party you stand behind and it is no longer about what color bandanna you wrap around your face. People are starting to realize whose to blame for their problems and they're starting to realize that their problems will kill them long before they'll ever see their ideology erected and working.

[Glenn Beck]

May be, but I really don't think you Communists can ever sell your argument to the masses. You put yourself into a situation where an opponent of Communism can say to the Proletarians, "see, these guys don't trust you. They want to take away your cherished freedoms." And you'll be dead in the water. Most people love their freedom of speech or to take Best Mod's point, their perceived freedom of speech very seriously. Much more seriously than they take any threat of Fascism.

And yea the Fascists were bad guys and liked a lot of people but so did Attila the Hun--and nobody would want their rights taken away because the Golden hoard may appear someday.

This argument diminishes Communism in real world debate and it fractures Communism from the inside because I'm sure there are plenty of Anarchist and non-Authoritarian Communists that would disagree with your point.

You want to take away a real right now because you see a probable threat in the future. From a practical point of view your position is just untenable.

I guess as a Capitalist I see things in terms of what sells and what doesn't and I don't see the magic here.

You have no fucking idea what I stand for, I doubt you even read my posts. All you do is project your own idiotic cliches so you can go and tear them down. You slander me with the name fascist and blackmail me your latest Eastern bogeyman distorting that I'm simply a realist, and I recognize the world doesn't operate on the basis of pretty words and ideas but on down-to-earth power struggles. I can't be held responsible for making the world the place it is, nor can it be said I make a virtue out of necessity. You act in bad faith when you deny all nuance and play with these abstractions just to score some cheap points.

I completely stand by my previous "ad hominem" post: even with all your liberal beliefs when it comes down to the nitty gritty you'll go along with whatever dirty dealings keep your side on top. Hell, you already do, you save all your outrage for a totally fictitious and hypothetical Red Menace and ignore this country's massive violations of its own stated principles. Conveniently, you often don't even bother learning about them because it's far easier to just not have to bother coming up with a justification. Otherwise you've always got an easy excuse or a simple handwave that it's "nothing compared to what you commies have in store".

I've got an entirely different perspective that you will never understand simply because your convictions are so weak that you can't bear to recognize that the world is a complicated place and so much is relative; that often the conflict is real and both sides have good reasons to fight. Socialism stands and has always stood for democracy and yes, freedom of speech, and all the various elements of human dignity that there are. Practically every single struggle for democratic rights and human dignity: socialists have been there. Every time a government somewhere decides to drop the hammer and crack down on dissent, the Reds are the first to go. Every fascist regime and military dictatorship has had radicals risking their lives to fight it while the liberals hide like cowards until the tide turns and they can come take over, or at least cut a power-sharing deal with the tyrants.

But just like you capitalists have your "exceptions", your "subversives" and "terrorists" that cross the line, so do we. The only difference is that your "subversives" are the majority, the people themselves, that have to be kept under the heel so that they don't threaten your ill-gotten goods. The revolutionary "exception" is there to protect the overwhelming majority of humanity from an infinitesimal few whose "freedom" is the "freedom" to rule over and tyrannize the rest.

It's so childish that you continue to wave the bloody shirt of the various crimes of Socialist leaders while you grant yourself the luxury of washing your hands of the practically endless list of tyrants that have drowned any threat to the system of profit in its own blood. What drives you, and many of the other feeble-minded of this board up the wall is that I refuse to take your coward's way out in response to liberal blackmail. I don't feel the need to answer for Russian, Korean, Chinese, or any other sins any more than you feel the need to answer for the dozens of tyrants that "made the world safe" for the system you directly support and directly benefit from. And yet I'm not drawing any benefit from refusing to condemn (contrary to the aforementioned blackmail, I do not support in any meaningful way) Kim or Mao or whatever scary Asian barbarian you want to substitute for Atilla or Genghis this week. I could just as easily puff myself up with indignation and shout right along with you "NOT TR00 COMMUNISM!" but I don't due to something foreign to liberal scum like you: principle.

Just like you, I'm against censorship. I don't know what you think about capital punishment but I'm against that too. And just like you, I'll make an exception to preserve freedoms I cherish. The difference is that I've got the balls to own it and say it out loud while you hide behind excuses and the deniability that comes when someone else is doing the dirty work behind a curtain for you. If you want to talk about "what sells", I would certainly hope "the common man" or whatever condescending abstraction you want to make up can appreciate and respect the virtue of honesty.

And one final clarification, which should be obvious but naturally isn't. I would much rather talk about the humane and benign side of socialism, the things we actually stand for and not the miserable choices people make during war. But this thread, this website, and this entire culture are so steeped in right-wing ideology that it's often impossible to get in a word about a message of social justice without being pounded by a barrage of hysterical accusations and blackmail about the most grim and bloody sides of socialist history, no matter how distant and unrelated. Conveniently, after exhaustively responding to it the same people who aren't interested in hearing about anything but the most violent and pornographic aspects of socialism proceed to complain about how dark, negative, and morbid we are. Check out the Mark Twain quote in my signature and see how frustration will make any humanist a little gloomy.

[Bud Struggle]

Nice post, Glenn. I sen't you a friedship request. :)

[Ele'ill]

Nice post, Glenn. I sen't you a friedship request. :)

Just out of curiosity- do you actually believe your own posts?

It seems like you enjoy presenting a questioning stance on an issue but then you don't necessarily stand behind it.

I don't think people are "convincing you otherwise" so that leaves it to you are well aware of what you're doing- and that you're well aware of what capitalism is doing.

What's the deal?

[NGNM85]

This thread is sort of exasperating. Do you people really think we have "free speech" in any meaningful sense of the term now?

That this is even a question is bizarre. Just go to your local bookstore, or Amazon.com. You can get the Communist Manifesto, the Satanic Bible, the Kama Sutra, and the Anarchist Cookbook. Surf the web, flip through the radio stations. You'll find right-wingers, leftists, evangelical christians, and conspiracy theorists. If you can think it up, you can write it, distribute it, and preach it in the town square. (With the very few exceptions, for advertising, and threats of imminant harm.) American law allows you to say or publish nearly anything, from NAMBLA literature, to neo-Nazi propaganda, to instructions on how to make homemade explosives. I'm not advocating any of these things, mind. However, there's no question that the US has about the most progressive and expansive legislation regarding free expression in the world.


Nobody is saying that's a good idea though!

You might not be, but some people definitely are.

[Ele'ill]

That this is even a question is bizarre. Just go to your local bookstore, or Amazon.com. You can get the Communist Manifesto, the Satanic Bible, the Kama Sutra, and the Anarchist Cookbook. Surf the web, flip through the radio stations. You'll find right-wingers, leftists, evangelical christians, and conspiracy theorists. If you can think it up, you can write it, distribute it, and preach it in the town square. (With the very few exceptions, for advertising, and threats of imminant harm.) American law allows you to say or publish nearly anything, from NAMBLA literature, to neo-Nazi propaganda, to instructions on how to make homemade explosives. I'm not advocating any of these things, mind. However, there's no question that the US has about the most progressive and expansive legislation regarding free expression in the world.



You might not be, but some people definitely are.

Then perhaps freedom of speech is accentuated because freedom to assemble is null.

[NGNM85]

Then perhaps freedom of speech is accentuated because freedom to assemble is null.

It's not necessarily ideal, but you can still get a permit and get a whole mess of people together. For example, May Day is always huge, at least in Boston. Hundreds of people get together and then march through the city. It happens every year like clockwork, there's never a problem.

[Optiow]

Look, we can argue this all day, every day for years on end. But the point is, we don't like fascists here. We are leftists, and allowing fascists to post their arguments, however well researched they are, will generate spam, flaming and trolling. I am all for free speech here and allowing everyone to speak their political affiliations, but the fact remains that no one supports fascists here, and this is a leftist site.

Sure, some will properly try and have a good discussion, but can you really think that a bunch of left wing members ganging up on a fascist support will be a good conversation? No. I say we should just leave it with the fact that we are leftists, and fascism is the complete opposite of that. Even if free speech is given, it will never generate the discussion people want it to.

[this is an invasion]

It's not necessarily ideal, but you can still get a permit and get a whole mess of people together. For example, May Day is always huge, at least in Boston. Hundreds of people get together and then march through the city. It happens every year like clockwork, there's never a problem.

Maybe if we get enough people marching, we will have a revolution.

[NGNM85]

Look, we can argue this all day, every day for years on end. But the point is, we don't like fascists here. We are leftists, and allowing fascists to post their arguments, however well researched they are, will generate spam, flaming and trolling. I am all for free speech here and allowing everyone to speak their political affiliations, but the fact remains that no one supports fascists here, and this is a leftist site.

The real issue isn't this website, it's out there in the real world. That's what we're debating. This is a private website, nobody has a right to post, here. Although, I still don't see any reason to ban right wingers if they follow the rules and conduct themselves appropriately.


Sure, some will properly try and have a good discussion, but can you really think that a bunch of left wing members ganging up on a fascist support will be a good conversation? No. I say we should just leave it with the fact that we are leftists, and fascism is the complete opposite of that. Even if free speech is given, it will never generate the discussion people want it to.

Maybe not, but at least there can be a discussion. Besides, I don't really have any illusions about converting true believers, I'm not arguing to change their minds, the people I want to hear me are the spectators who haven't made up their minds, yet.

[NGNM85]

I have the feeling that NGNM is speaking from a position of complete inexperience.

A baseless accusation.


You can read Chomsky all you want (seems like you read just him), but honestly, Chomsky is to anarchism what Hilary Clinton is to anarchism.

Complete nonsense. Just read AK Press' "Chomsky on Anarchism."


Seriously, Chomsky's understanding of the state and revolution is stupid.

You can say it's incorrect, and you'd be wrong, but it isn't stupid.


The welfare state and its "progressive" reforms do not do anything for the working class in the context of revolution. They are, in fact, impediments to revolution entirely because they push people apart by creating even more dependence on the state, rather than bring people together. Until you realize that, you will be entirely irrelevant to the working class.

Just like Chomsky.

First, it would bring a substantial industry into the public sphere, and, thus, under public control. It would also, incidentally, help millions of people.

Chomsky has done more for the working class around the world than you.

I don't know why you care because this philosophy is of someone who plainly doesn't give a shit about the working class. You care about your revolution, in this crude, literal conception. Whether or not 'seven-year-old-children have food to eat' is irrelevant. They can starve. For what it's worth I don't think the working class will find that very compelling.


Also, you should change your custom title to "Infinitely Liberal." LOL

You don't know what the word means, however there's a lot of that going around.


P.S. Did it cross anyone's mind that anarchists were for freedom of speech in the USSR because it was in their interest as a group of opposition to the Bolsheviks? Not to mention that maybe anarchist theory, its understanding of the way capital and the state interact, and the way the Left operates may have changed since then?

I was referring more to the American anarchists', I specifically had Emma Goldman in mind, who were intially in support of the Russian revolution, but after the Bolsheviks got into power and immediately institutionalized new forms of oppression, they bitterly condemned it.

No variety of Anarchism worthy of the name could take any other possible position. It's the most fundamental principle.


The anarchist/anti-state movement has had enough experience throughout history that we ought to understand that supporting reforms, more democratic leaders, etc in the hope of keeping away from fascism is a complete failure. We should also understand that supporting the state at all, regardless of whether it is "nice" or not will in no way bring us any closer to true proletarian revolution.

You keep exemplifying my point.

[this is an invasion]

A baseless accusation.
Don't care. You reek of ivory tower shit.



Complete nonsense. Just read AK Press' "Chomsky on Anarchism."
The Bible is a book too. Doesn't mean it's right.



You can say it's incorrect, and you'd be wrong, but it isn't stupid.
Yes it is.



First, it would bring a substantial industry into the public sphere, and, thus, under public control. It would also, incidentally, help millions of people.

Chomsky has done more for the working class around the world than you. prove it

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation for how someone who claims to be anti-state can support the state.


I don't know why you care because this philosophy is of someone who plainly doesn't give a shit about the working class. You care about your revolution, in this crude, literal conception. Whether or not 'seven-year-old-children have food to eat' is irrelevant. They can starve. For what it's worth I don't think the working class will find that very compelling.
Nonsense, my desire for revolution comes directly from the fact that I care about the working class. I've already said this.

Also, silly me for wanting revolution and posting on a site called RevLeft (as in Revolutionary (omfg there's that word!) Left).

Can I ask you about slavery real quick? The slave masters. They fed their workers. Do you support that?





You don't know what the word means, however there's a lot of that going around. Yes, I think anyone that supports reforming the state or capital to be liberal.

Same goes with people who continually quote Chomsky.




I was referring more to the American anarchists', I specifically had Emma Goldman in mind, who were intially in support of the Russian revolution, but after the Bolsheviks got into power and immediately institutionalized new forms of oppression, they bitterly condemned it. My point still stands. It's entirely possible that even American anarchists supported freedom of speech because it was in the favor of the anarchists in Russia.

Besides, I have not once said that I believe in actually taking away anyone's legal right to freedom of speech. Guess why.

It's cause I'm against the state (:O) and because I understand the extremely dangerous consequences of giving the state that sort of power.

Since we're all up on rights right (lol) now, do you believe people have the freedom of association?


No variety of Anarchism worthy of the name could take any other possible position. It's the most fundamental principle.

I don't understand how any variety of anarchism worth of the name can support anything done by the state. That is the implication of being anti-state.




You keep exemplifying my point.
Your point you made about me wanting revolution? Yeah dude. I want revolution. I also understand how the state and capitalism are both impediments to this, and that one of the first steps toward working class self-liberation is to cut itself off from dependence on the state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

However, there's no question that the US has about the most progressive and expansive legislation regarding free expression in the world.Unless you are a former President who dares write a book that's sympathetic to zionims but still criticizes the occupation of Palestinians - then you become a pariah.

Unless you are at work and want to talk to your co-workers about unionizing your workplace.

Unless you were Eugene Debs or a pasifist speaking out against WWI - an anarchist or marxist during the 1920s red-scare Palmer-raids, a militant unionist during McCarthyism, LGBT person until the last decade (and then, not always), a black person before the end of Jim Crow, a poor person at any time.

Ok, I am being unfair - of course there are many bourgeois rights that should be defended and help workers... we are not under fascist rule. But these points and endless others that most of us could list-off from the top of our heads demonstrate 2 things IMO:

1. Bourgeois rights are not automatic. The rights we have are from struggle. Freedom of Speech was part of the US government, but 10 years later, the government was also imprisoning anyone who showed sympathies to the French Revolution. So it has been from people fighting to unionize, fighting for the right to be openly gay without being fired, and so on that is the real SOURCE of our rights - not universal notions of rights or so on.

2. You can not talk about rights in class societies outside of a class framework. If radical lit is acceptable right now, but not at other times in our past it is only because the ruling class does not see us as a threat (Glenn Beck and people on the far-right do and so they go out and get left-wing professors fired and try to get people with left-viewpoints out of positions where those ideas -speech - will be heard). To paraphrase Joe Strummer: you've got rights unless you're stupid enough to try and exercise them.

If bourgeois rights can be made effective for working class people through struggle - they can also be made null by effective struggle by our enemies. This is what the fascist represent. If their ideas enter the mainstream then our rights become less and less - even if they do not take power. Just think - black disenfranchisement after the end of Reconstruction happened while "bourgois rights" remained in tact. Blacks didn't loose the vote - they just lost it in effect because southern reactionaries terrorized blacks who tried to exercise their rights along with other laws to make voting difficult for the poor.

When the KKK went mainstream in the US after WWI and (the old version of the org.) was the subject of movies like "Birth of a Nation" and books like "Gone with the Wind" and marched in Washington DC and commended by Senators, what was the result? Asian immigration was restricted, segregation was expanded, 200 blacks were killed in a pogrom in Tulsa and...


Klan members, between 1920-27 it has been estimated, carried out the lynching of 416 Blacks (http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=Blacks) in the Southern States. Research by writers at the time indicated that most of the victims were innocent or were only accused of minor offences.

Speech has real-world consequences and I don't think we are serving "free speech" by letting people promote ideas with the sole purpose of eliminating the rights of workers and terrorizing people. I don't think the lynched blacks and strikers and jews and so on were having THEIR free-speech served when others allowed the KKK to march unopposed in DC.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Then perhaps freedom of speech is accentuated because freedom to assemble is null.I think you're onto something. IMO freedom of speech is accentuated as long as it is no real threat to the power of the ruling class because abstract bourgeois rights help paper-over concrete bourgeois inequalities.

After 1917 there was a crack-down on radicals because we were a real threat. Since the 1970s, one of the main projects of the right has been marginalizing left-wing academics and even trying to get them fired - this is because of the perception that these ideas and professors led to the anti-war and liberation movements of the 1960s.

Also it would be good for us to look at the Berkeley Free Speech Movement to see how these rights work in the US. The Campus administration was fine with all sorts of academic speech (although faculty had to sign loyalty oaths - teachers in California still do and I had to sign one when I got a job as a para-educator at a school) and you could pass out leaflets and sign-up people and get donations - but ONLY for the Democrats and Republicans. So what set off the student movement? A cop tried to arrest someone who was doing anti-rascist work and organizing with CORE. So because here was someone actually putting his speech into action, by organizing for real-world things... he was a threat and the administration wanted to put a stop to students organizing around "off-campus political issues".

So free-speech IMO is like elections in capitalism - our rulers like to emphasize your freedom to vote for anyone while in practice the field of choices is limited both in the number of parties that get coverage and into debates and so on, but also because the structure of the system prevents most reforms that would actually threaten the nature of the system. Speech is similar - hold your rally, talk about your crazy ideas but if people begin to listen and if the speech makes an impact, then they will try and shut you down.

[Bud Struggle]

Just out of curiosity- do you actually believe your own posts?

It seems like you enjoy presenting a questioning stance on an issue but then you don't necessarily stand behind it.

I don't think people are "convincing you otherwise" so that leaves it to you are well aware of what you're doing- and that you're well aware of what capitalism is doing.

What's the deal?

I believe my posts and I stand behind them, but I don't take other people's opinions personally. Other people have equal rights to their own opinion and I respect that. If I disagree with someone's point of view it doesn't mean that I dislike that person perrsonally. I like Glenn. He seems to be a pretty passionate and heartfelt guy and I admire that about him. Just because I disagree with him on this subject doesn't mean I don't like him and that I won't agree with him on other issues.


Unless you are a former President who dares write a book that's sympathetic to zionims but still criticizes the occupation of Palestinians - then you become a pariah.

Unless you are at work and want to talk to your co-workers about unionizing your workplace.

Unless you were Eugene Debs or a pasifist speaking out against WWI - an anarchist or marxist during the 1920s red-scare Palmer-raids, a militant unionist during McCarthyism, LGBT person until the last decade (and then, not always), a black person before the end of Jim Crow, a poor person at any time.

Ok, I am being unfair.

Yea it is unfair--but that's OK. The point is that you can write a book unsympathetic to Zionism--and you will be a pariah--but you WON'T GO TO JAIL. You can also right a book sympathetic to the KKK and you will be a pariah but you won't go to jail either. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you will be loved for what you say--it must means that the state won't get in the way of you saying what you want.

And yes--it hasn't been perfect in the past Blacks and Unions and others have been treated unfairly--so the solution is now that EVERYBODY has a right to whatever political speech they want--no matter how odious it is. Without judgement from the government. You personally as a free citizen have the right to argue against someone else's point of view--but not his right to express it.

And you have to see that if Nazi speech is banned--so will Communist speech. 95% of Americans see these ideologies as two sides of the same coin.

[Chambered Word]

And you have to see that if Nazi speech is banned--so will Communist speech. 95% of Americans see these ideologies as two sides of the same coin.

Read this:


This is just a moronic thread. No Platform isn't even any kind of official governmental censorship policy, it's a policy of civil organizations and a strategy by activists to avoid giving legitimacy to racist groups and their bigoted opinions by not engaging them publicly and pressuring other organizations to do the same, thus depriving them of a platform with which to express their viewpoints. The rationale is similar to that of boycotts and divestment campaigns, which I'm sure are also diabolical concoctions dreamt up by Kim Jong-Il.

95%? I'm sure you're exaggerating.

I don't see why this debate even exists, why would any leftist support free speech for fascists; people who work actively to take away the rights - freedom of speech and all - of others.

[RGacky3]

I like Glenn. He seems to be a pretty passionate and heartfelt guy and I admire that about him. Just because I disagree with him on this subject doesn't mean I don't like him and that I won't agree with him on other issues.


A passionate and heartfelt guy? You do realize he repeately lies to people and hate mongers in order to suppor the richest people in the country? He's a dispicable propegandist.


And you have to see that if Nazi speech is banned--so will Communist speech. 95% of Americans see these ideologies as two sides of the same coin.

Thats not even close to being true.




As far as arguements against unconditional freedom of speach, those that are against it really just show a contempt for working class people, they think that THEY are smarter than working class people and have to protect them from themselves, its as simple as that. Nazis might pray on weakness, you don't think people know that? You don't think people are smart enough to decipher arguments?

Now, then the idea of freedom of speach in America is a joke, because essencially, freedom of speach is bought, but you don't fix that by trying to ban freedom of speach, you fix it by taking the money out of it.

When people are throwing billions of dollars into a lie its gonna win against people telling the truth, unfortunately its as if you have a debate where one side gets an hour and the ability to cut off the other person any time he wants and cut his mic, whereas one person gets a minute and no mic, thats exactly how it is.

[Bud Struggle]

Read this:

95%? I'm sure you're exaggerating.

Maybe a bit--but Americans has a LONG history of hateing Communists from the Cold War days. Maybe for you younger guys that was a long time ago--but for older people that was yesterday.


I don't see why this debate even exists, why would any leftist support free speech for fascists; people who work actively to take away the rights - freedom of speech and all - of others.

Oh, here's why the debate is happening: because the Communists and the Nazis go after the same customer base for recruits--disaffected youth inthe short term and then workers for the long term

Liberals, Conservatives, Bourgeois, don't really care much about a fringe group like that. They have bigger fish to fry. But kids that turn to Nazism and kids that turn to Communism start at the same place--alienation from today's Capitalist society and are looking for an alternative. They will be the workers of tomorrow.

Some choose a path of blame and hate and some of inclusion and class struggle. The Communist figure if the choice of hate isn't given to the disaffrected they would have a better chance of bringing on the Revolution.

What this debate brings into focus is that Communists (for a good if not for the most part) feel "Class Stuggle" is more important that human Rights--at least in the short term.

I for one find that interesting.

[Bud Struggle]

A passionate and heartfelt guy? You do realize he repeately lies to people and hate mongers in order to suppor the richest people in the country? He's a dispicable propegandist.


I wasn't talking about the radio guy Glenn Beck--I was talking about the RevLeft Poster Glen Beck.

[RGacky3]

Oh, here's why the debate is happening: because the Communists and the Nazis go after the same customer base for recruits--disaffected youth.

Depends what you mean by communists, if your including people who generally associate with socialists, it would be almost a third of the country, according to a poll during the 2008 election (in America btw). The liberals/conservatices/bourgeouis are VERY concerned about stopping socialism in the world and America.


What this debate brings into focus is that Communists (for a good if not most part) feel "Class Stuggle" is more important that human Rights--at least in the short term.

I for one find that interesting.

I disagree, as you know, I believe universal unconditional freeom of speach is the prerequisit for anytype of democracy, which is the prerquisit for any type of socialism.


I wasn't talking about the radio guy Glenn Beck--I was talking about the RevLeft Poster Glen Beck.

Oh sorry, my bad.

[Bud Struggle]

I disagree, as you know, I believe universal unconditional freeom of speach is the prerequisit for anytype of democracy, which is the prerquisit for any type of socialism.


I know. And here you see the split between the Marxist/Trotskyists/Leninists and the Anarchists. You can see the discomfort the more authoritarian Communists have in talking about this subject.

As I said--it's interesting.

[#FF0000]

I know. And here you see the split between the Marxist/Trotskyists/Leninists and the Anarchists. You can see the discomfort the more authoritarian Communists have in talking about this subject.

As I said--it's interesting.

I don't see any "authoritarian" communists in this entire thread.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't see any "authoritarian" communists in this entire thread.

If they have interests in filtering information or limiting access to information or in anyway encumbering the free exercise of speech--they are authoritarians no matter the basis of their political views.

As for me--I'd support your Revolution as long as I don't lose my basic human rights. I want MORE rights after the Revolution--not less.

[370H55V]

Since we know they are scum, they should be locked up and silenced. To hell with letting them speak up. We have the right, no, the DUTY, to keep them quiet.

[#FF0000]

If they have interests in filtering information or limiting access to information or in anyway encumbering the free exercise of speech--they are authoritarians no matter the basis of their political views.

As for me--I'd support your Revolution as long as I don't lose my basic human rights. I want MORE rights after the Revolution--not less.

That's absurd because people do that today and everyone believes in some kind of censorship at least. Are you going to admit we live in an authoritarian society today, then?

[Bud Struggle]

That's absurd because people do that today and everyone believes in some kind of censorship at least. Are you going to admit we live in an authoritarian society today, then?

Of course we live in an authoritarian society. That's what government is all about. I've got mayors and govenors and presidents and all sorts of people that have authority over me in this society--don't you?

The US government inforces my human rights and my property rights. I'd be happy to trade my property rights for more human rights--but not for LESS human rights.

I don't believe there should ever be any censorship of ANY political speech.*

*It's pretty funny that I'm the most radical guy on this website. :D

[RGacky3]

I don't see any "authoritarian" communists in this entire thread.

You know what he means.


Of course we live in an authoritarian society. That's what government is all about. I've got mayors and govenors and presidents and all sorts of people that have authority over me in this society--don't you?

What makes it authoritarian is'nt that at all, its that YOU are supposed to have authority over the government (which lessesn the authortarianism), however it does't work like that, the Capitalist class has authority over the government, and thats the authoritarianism.


That's absurd because people do that today and everyone believes in some kind of censorship at least.

I don't believe in ANY censorship at all, HOWEVER, I also believe that the main media should be democratically run, (which means if a society democratically does'nt want hate speach or obscene things on the airwaves they won't broadcast it, unlike how it works now, where its whoever has the money.)

However Legislating a bad on someones speach, to where you cannot personally say something destroys the very basis of democracy. Without total freedom of speach you can't have democracy, thats what makes you guys Authoritarian.

What you say on your own is your personal choice, thats individual freedom, what is on the airwaves is social, its something that should be democratically run.

[Ele'ill]

If they have interests in filtering information or limiting access to information or in anyway encumbering the free exercise of speech--they are authoritarians no matter the basis of their political views.

As for me--I'd support your Revolution as long as I don't lose my basic human rights. I want MORE rights after the Revolution--not less.


At a general glance I agree.

The issue starts when 'platform' isn't actually a platform but a spectacle. I wouldn't consider Fox News to be a platform of free speech- It needs to be taken more seriously and we might want to consider some consequences for intentionally misleading large portions of the population.

If Fox, CNN and MSNBC are all lying (which they often do) and if they're stating intensely distracting opinions then they are no longer news sites and are considered entertainment.

So where's our news?


If the US blows up a wedding in Iraq I want to know the details- I don't want the 'news' station to spend the next week worth of their wages and salaries to paint a sympathetic picture towards US intelligence- and when the plot thickens- I don't want to change gears and spend the next six months following a story about a rich white girl with blonde hair and blue eyes that went missing a year ago. A fucking wedding had a bomb land in the middle of it and people fucking died. You know how many people go missing in the projects every month?


The issue isn't rejecting platform it's giving everyone the same platform. The day I see Democracy Now! one tv station under Glenn Beck's (the tv guy not the revleft poster) on public tv or basic cable is the day that platform isn't an issue.

[#FF0000]

You know what he means.

No, I don't, because "authoritarianism" is a meaningless word that can be applied at any time to an group the speaker doesn't like and using it is always detrimental to any discussion because it instantly splits things up into good (non-authoritarian, freedom loving!) and bad (evil authoritarian dictators boooo). Once the word is thrown out the whole discussion just becomes people paying lip service to "freedom" and grilling people who don't do the exact same thing.

And for the last fucking time, everyone in here save for a few idiots, sees the problem with government getting involved with this sort of thing. That isn't what anti-fascists advocate and so there's no reason to bring it up.

[Bud Struggle]

And for the last fucking time, everyone in here save for a few idiots, sees the problem with government getting involved with this sort of thing. That isn't what anti-fascists advocate and so there's no reason to bring it up.

And as I said--it's not about today's government. It's neutral on this subject we all know that and it's a dead issue, it's about what you want from your Revolution.

That's where you Communists become freakin' scarey.

(You have to know your point is fucked up when me and RGacky are on the same side. :D )

[RGacky3]

No, I don't, because "authoritarianism" is a meaningless word that can be applied at any time to an group the speaker doesn't like and using it is always detrimental to any discussion because it instantly splits things up into goode

What he means is Leninists, and socialists that follow that style.


And for the last fucking time, everyone in here save for a few idiots, sees the problem with government getting involved with this sort of thing. That isn't what anti-fascists advocate and so there's no reason to bring it up.

Who does the censoring then? and how?

[#FF0000]

What he means is Leninists, and socialists that follow that style.

And that's supposed to be synonymous with authoritarian, yeah I get it.



Who does the censoring then? and how?

Anti-fascist groups separate from the government? They organize counter-protests and shout down fascists.

[Bud Struggle]

Best Mod,

This is where I give Gack and NGMN credit--they actualy BELIEVE that if given a fair choice people, workers, would choose a Communist way of life. I give them credit for their convictions.

You people don't seem to believe that workers can choose wisely if given a fair choice. You seem to feel the need to "guide" them to make the "correct" choices. Maybe after the Revolution you can hire a "reformed" Rupert Murdoch to help you.

Maybe a "reformed" Glenn Beck and a "reformed" Bill O'Reilly (they are just shills anyways) can help you.

The network is already set up--all we have to do is tune in.

Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.

[Ele'ill]

Best Mod,

This is where I give Gack and NGMN credit--they actualy BELIEVE that if given a fair choice people, workers, would choose a Communist way of life. I give them credit for their convictions.

You people don't seem to believe that workers can choose wisely if given a fair choice. You seem to feel the need to "guide" them to make the "correct" choices. Maybe after the Revolution you can hire a "reformed" Rupert Murdoch to help you.

Maybe a "reformed" Glenn Beck and a "reformed" Bill O'Reilly (they are just shills anyways) can help you.

The network is already set up--all we have to do is tune in.

Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.


I don't want to beat a dead horse here (being the topic at hand) and I respect you as a poster on this forum but it isn't about 'guiding' people it's about accurate news. If a population is getting inaccurate news intentionally it's a problem it isn't just a 'shrill' when a major atrocity takes place and it's written off by the media as being much less than it is.

The difference between US military forces using chemical weapons on a civilian population (Fallujah) and having 100 times more civilian casualties than military target casualties is an issue the people of a population need to know about in order to 'vote accordingly'. As far as they know it was a successful US military campaign against 'Insurgents'.

Hearing about what the WTO IMF and WB are really doing (and that they actually exist) is an issue the population needs to know about in order to make educated decisions.

You wouldn't want your children growing up reading text books filled with fallacies and thus we don't want a population guided by fallacies.

That platform of lies is the only platform allowed right now. That's the issue- that's why it's dangerous.

[#FF0000]

You people don't seem to believe that workers can choose wisely if given a fair choice. You seem to feel the need to "guide" them to make the "correct" choices. Maybe after the Revolution you can hire a "reformed" Rupert Murdoch to help you.

No, nobody in this thread thinks this.

[NGNM85]

At a general glance I agree.

The issue starts when 'platform' isn't actually a platform but a spectacle. I wouldn't consider Fox News to be a platform of free speech- It needs to be taken more seriously and we might want to consider some consequences for intentionally misleading large portions of the population.

If Fox, CNN and MSNBC are all lying (which they often do) and if they're stating intensely distracting opinions then they are no longer news sites and are considered entertainment.

So where's our news?


If the US blows up a wedding in Iraq I want to know the details- I don't want the 'news' station to spend the next week worth of their wages and salaries to paint a sympathetic picture towards US intelligence- and when the plot thickens- I don't want to change gears and spend the next six months following a story about a rich white girl with blonde hair and blue eyes that went missing a year ago. A fucking wedding had a bomb land in the middle of it and people fucking died. You know how many people go missing in the projects every month?


The issue isn't rejecting platform it's giving everyone the same platform. The day I see Democracy Now! one tv station under Glenn Beck's (the tv guy not the revleft poster) on public tv or basic cable is the day that platform isn't an issue.

The consolidation and omnipresence of corporate media and the 'manufacture of consent', to borrow the phrase, do concern me. However this isn't really a free speech, issue. Nobody has the right to be on TV. Moreover, if less individual rights are the best solution people can come up with, they've got a serious problem. This debate strongly highlights the differences between Communism and Anarchism.

[Ele'ill]

The consolidation and omnipresence of corporate media and the 'manufacture of consent', to borrow the phrase, do concern me. However this isn't really a free speech, issue. Nobody has the right to be on TV. Moreover, if less individual rights are the best solution people can come up with, they've got a serious problem. This debate strongly highlights the differences between Communism and Anarchism.

Without going back a page I believe my post was more in reference to the other specific comments in that sidebar slightly related conversation.

[NGNM85]

Don't care. You reek of ivory tower shit.

If only...

I’m picking up a whiff of “I’m-sixteen-and angry-with-my-father” syndrome.


The Bible is a book too. Doesn't mean it's right.

Have you even read it? (Not the Bible.)


Yes it is.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m the last person who believes words have actual meanings. You don’t just get to call it ‘stupid’ just because you disagree, or you dislike it. (This also is a piss-poor excuse for an argument.) Henry Kissinger is a repulsive caricature of a human being, among other things, but he is not stupid. I don’t get to call him or his vile tomes ‘stupid’ just because I dislike him.


prove it

Prove what? Both of those statements are incontrovertible facts. Nationalizing healthcare would cut people’s medical costs in half, and provide medical care for millions of uninsured or underinsured people. The most commonly cited figure is about 45 million uninsured, if we include the underinsured, it’s more likely a bigger number. It’s estimated at least 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have medical coverage, I guarantee you the real number is substantially bigger. But, hey, who gives a fuck, right?

As for Chomsky, I’m not going to write his fucking biography, but he has been a crusader for human rights around the world for over half a century, and along with very few contemporaries, like the late great Howard Zinn, provides a shining example of being both a great academic and a great activist.


Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation for how someone who claims to be anti-state can support the state.

Only because you have a very limited, black and white conception of it. For the very same reason Anarchists aren’t championing deregulation, or trying to get rid of the EPA, or Social Security. Yes, technically, these actions would result in less government. However, that’s entirely missing the point. This is one of the huge differences between Anarchism and American far-right ‘Libertarians”. Anarchism is socialist, and (therefore) secular humanist in nature. No real Anarchist would support those positions because; A-It’s really going to hurt people, especially poor people., and B-You’re just replacing the state, which could be held accountable, with completely unaccountable private tyrannies. I don’t think either of those possibilities are especially attractive.


Nonsense, my desire for revolution comes directly from the fact that I care about the working class. I've already said this.

However, everything else says the exact opposite. If you care about the working class you do everything to help them, wherever you can. You choose the lesser evil. That’s what you do if you actually care. If you can’t get everybody out of a burning building, you don't just say; “Fuck it.” And let everybody burn, if you care, you help to the degree you can. You said you’re against national healthcare because it doesn’t lead to the culmination of your macho, atavistic fantasy. That isn’t saying; “I care about the working class.”, that’s saying; “Fuck the working class.”


Also, silly me for wanting revolution and posting on a site called RevLeft (as in Revolutionary (omfg there's that word!) Left).

I’m saying there are many different kinds of revolutions, using many different methods. I think revolutionary violence, as I’ve said, should meet several specific criteria; it must be warranted by the circumstances, there must not be a viable alternative, and there must be a substantial certainty that it won’t ultimately result in a greater backlash and making things worse than they were to start with. That just sort of makes sense. In Chechnya, or Beijing, you’d probably have to use violence because these are in oppressive police states. However, thankfully, we live under different circumstances, in a dramatically more free society. We actually have, albeit limited, mechanisms to hold the state accountable.


Can I ask you about slavery real quick? The slave masters. They fed their workers. Do you support that?

That’s a misunderstanding of the issue. The issue is do you support feeding the slaves while slavery still exists? I would say, yes. That’s the difference.


Yes, I think anyone that supports reforming the state or capital to be liberal.

This is absolutely pointless to debate.


Same goes with people who continually quote Chomsky.

I’d say he’s an Anarchist, but you’d have to be able to make that determination, yourself.

How about Thomas Paine? “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” Essentially it’s the same thing Niemoller was saying, what Chomsky was saying. It's the same idea.


My point still stands. It's entirely possible that even American anarchists supported freedom of speech because it was in the favor of the anarchists in Russia.

Perhaps, however the bigger issue is that it’s philosophically consistent, moreover it’s the only consistent position.


Besides, I have not once said that I believe in actually taking away anyone's legal right to freedom of speech. Guess why.

I’m not interested in speculating.


It's cause I'm against the state (:O) and because I understand the extremely dangerous consequences of giving the state that sort of power.

Since we're all up on rights right (lol) now, do you believe people have the freedom of association?

To an extent, yes. This has nothing to do however, with the fact that you absolutely have freedom of speech. In fact, more so than virtually anywhere in the industrialized world.


I don't understand how any variety of anarchism worth of the name can support anything done by the state. That is the implication of being anti-state.

That might be how I’d explain it to a 10-year-old, but that’s far from adequate.


Your point you made about me wanting revolution? Yeah dude. I want revolution. I also understand how the state and capitalism are both impediments to this, and that one of the first steps toward working class self-liberation is to cut itself off from dependence on the state.

You’re never going to do that until you can provide a viable alternative that actually meets people’s needs, no sooner.

[Optiow]

The real issue isn't this website, it's out there in the real world. That's what we're debating. This is a private website, nobody has a right to post, here. Although, I still don't see any reason to ban right wingers if they follow the rules and conduct themselves appropriately.



Maybe not, but at least there can be a discussion. Besides, I don't really have any illusions about converting true believers, I'm not arguing to change their minds, the people I want to hear me are the spectators who haven't made up their minds, yet.
I do not see a reason to ban then either, but any discussions with fascists will surely turn into rubbish, and that we can do without.

[RGacky3]

And that's supposed to be synonymous with authoritarian, yeah I get it.


No its not, but when people say "authoritarian socialist" as opposed to libertarian socialist, thats what they generally are refering too, so its kind of silly to feign ignorance just to make a point.


Anti-fascist groups separate from the government? They organize counter-protests and shout down fascists.

Thats fine, thats not censorship thats just a counter protest.

My problem is when it comes down to legislating or actually violently suppressing the freedom of speach.

Shouting down someone is just a counter protest its not censorship. But I think its pointless, a much better tactic is just to point out their ignorance and humiliate them, make them a laughing stock (as they should be).


That platform of lies is the only platform allowed right now. That's the issue- that's why it's dangerous.

I complealy agree, its an uphill battle to try and get our voices out there, but there are ways, less and less people trust the main stream media, fox news is starting to be viewed by most americans as a joke, what socialists have to do is weaking the capitalist monopoly and louden the opposition.

But if your solution is to try and maginalize them then yeah, I agree, if it is somehow trying to legislate or actually violently suppress their speach thats a different issue.

[#FF0000]

No its not, but when people say "authoritarian socialist" as opposed to libertarian socialist, thats what they generally are refering too, so its kind of silly to feign ignorance just to make a point.

Yeah I mean it's not authoritarian is an extremely loaded word with negative connotations or anything.

[Hit The North]

The consolidation and omnipresence of corporate media and the 'manufacture of consent', to borrow the phrase, do concern me. However this isn't really a free speech, issue. Nobody has the right to be on TV.

If you believe in absolute freedom of speech and TV is the chief medium through which communication is made in our society, then you should be arguing that everyone should have the right to be on TV. Otherwise you're surrendering to the authority of the private ownership and control of mass media and this is not a very anarchist position.


Moreover, if less individual rights are the best solution people can come up with, they've got a serious problem.
A post-revolutionary society could feasibly remove the right to freedom of speech and still provide more individual rights than are offered under the present miserable system. The right to work. The right to shelter. The right to eat. The right to clean water. Etc.

Anyway, this is not about rights. The principle behind No Platform doesn't argue that fascists don't have the right to voice their opinion; rather the guiding principle is that we have a duty to mobilise against their attempts to do so.

And this not a cop-out. As I point out above, the argument about trading rights gets us nowhere. You have a right to express your opinion. I have a right not to be degraded by your opinion. It's a quandary which can only be overcome through political struggle.


This debate strongly highlights the differences between Communism and Anarchism.Only your brand of Anarchism, I'm pleased to report. The Anarchist Federation in the UK supports no platform for fascists and racists.

[IllicitPopsicle]

The symbolism isn't banned any more, now that they don't see Communism as a threat. Back in the 20s and the 50s it was; in the 1920s South Dakota even changed its flag because it was red with a white star in the center (they thought it looked too Commy). Back then you could be brought before a court for having supposed links to Leftist parties and even jailed or blacklisted; it happened all the time. They don't do it anymore because they don't perceive Communism or Socialist as having any potential in the world. If it came to the forefront in a major country, they would do precisely the same thing all over again.

They've never banned fascist symbolism or fascist party activity. Thousands of proud Americans happily waved around swastikas during their rallies even during World War II, nationalist and fascist parties in the USA openly supported Hitler's Germany. There was never a "fascist scare" here in America, there was never panic or mass arrest caused by fear of fascism taking power. They came after the Reds, and still do in smaller ways. The size of their reaction is proportional to the success of the world revolution.

Oklahoma, today (or very recently): §21 374. Display of red flag or emblem of disloyalty or anarchy.

Any person in this state, who shall carry or cause to be carried, or publicly display any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government, or the defiance of the laws of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary of the State of Oklahoma for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by both such imprisonment and fine.

Added by Laws 1919, c. 83, p. 133, § 1, emerg. eff. April 2, 1919. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 178, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 95, eff. July 1, 1999.

[Bud Struggle]

Oklahoma, today (or very recently): §21 374. Display of red flag or emblem of disloyalty or anarchy.

Any person in this state, who shall carry or cause to be carried, or publicly display any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government, or the defiance of the laws of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary of the State of Oklahoma for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by both such imprisonment and fine.

Added by Laws 1919, c. 83, p. 133, § 1, emerg. eff. April 2, 1919. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 178, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 95, eff. July 1, 1999.

It would get overturned in a heartbeat if someone challenged the law.

[Bud Struggle]

If you believe in absolute freedom of speech and TV is the chief medium through which communication is made in our society, then you should be arguing that everyone should have the right to be on TV. Otherwise you're surrendering to the authority of the private ownership and control of mass media and this is not a very anarchist position. As if anyone listens to the media. The people control the ratings and the ratings control the media. It's not about propaganda--it's about SALES in this Capitalist system.


A post-revolutionary society could feasibly remove the right to freedom of speech and still provide more individual rights than are offered under the present miserable system. The right to work. The right to shelter. The right to eat. The right to clean water. Etc. That's 1984. No thanks. I rather keep Capitalism's freedoms--at least we have something of a say.


Anyway, this is not about rights. The principle behind No Platform doesn't argue that fascists don't have the right to voice their opinion; rather the guiding principle is that we have a duty to mobilise against their attempts to do so. As they would have the right to mobilize against you.


Only your brand of Anarchism, I'm pleased to report. The Anarchist Federation in the UK supports no platform for fascists and racists. To date Communism has had a splendid history of selling out the Proletariat to gain power. Let's hope for something better in the future.

[#FF0000]

That's 1984. No thanks. I rather keep Capitalism's freedoms--at least we have something of a say.

But this same thing happens in capitalist society too but you don't suggest we dump capitalism over it.

[NGNM85]

If you believe in absolute freedom of speech and TV is the chief medium through which communication is made in our society, then you should be arguing that everyone should have the right to be on TV. Otherwise you're surrendering to the authority of the private ownership and control of mass media and this is not a very anarchist position.

First of all it's just sort of basic logic. To begin with, it really isn't feasible or even desireable to give everyone a time slot on television, especially during primetime hours. Even in an Anarchist society there would be some sort of regulation, a show would have to be able to drum up sufficient ratings, etc. Let's use an analogy; everyone has the right to use the internet, but not everyone has the right to post on this website, because it's a private website with it's own policies that allows people to participate at it's discretion.


A post-revolutionary society could feasibly remove the right to freedom of speech and still provide more individual rights than are offered under the present miserable system. The right to work. The right to shelter. The right to eat. The right to clean water. Etc.

Even a gilded cage is still a cage, nonetheless. You could have a lot of very healthy, employed financially comfortable people but no democracy, no liberty. Theres' no reason it should be a zero-sum game. You're just fixing the old problems while creating new ones. This is a very dubious line of thinking.


Anyway, this is not about rights. The principle behind No Platform doesn't argue that fascists don't have the right to voice their opinion; rather the guiding principle is that we have a duty to mobilise against their attempts to do so.

Mobilize against it, I'd agree with, silencing it is something very different.


And this not a cop-out. As I point out above, the argument about trading rights gets us nowhere. You have a right to express your opinion. I have a right not to be degraded by your opinion. It's a quandary which can only be overcome through political struggle.

As long as nobody commits crimes, based on those opinions or otherwise, that's it. You either come up with a better argument, or you ignore it.


Only your brand of Anarchism, I'm pleased to report. The Anarchist Federation in the UK supports no platform for fascists and racists.

Not my brand, this is a completely false characterization, this goes back to the very beginning. Again, you can find this in the literature going back over a hundred years. Moreover it's the only philosophically consistant position. The group does not advocate this policy in their official charter, but I'll take you're word for it. There are a lot of people who claim to be Anarchists, I'm not responsible for all of them, obviously, there's going to be a few jokers in the crowd.

[#FF0000]

I thought we established already that No Platform doesn't violate free speech.

[NGNM85]

Oklahoma, today (or very recently): §21 374. Display of red flag or emblem of disloyalty or anarchy.

Any person in this state, who shall carry or cause to be carried, or publicly display any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government, or the defiance of the laws of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary of the State of Oklahoma for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by both such imprisonment and fine.

Added by Laws 1919, c. 83, p. 133, § 1, emerg. eff. April 2, 1919. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 178, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 95, eff. July 1, 1999.

Bud's right, this is completely unconstitutional, it would be overturned in a heartbeat, if it hasn't been, already.

[this is an invasion]

I’m picking up a whiff of “I’m-sixteen-and angry-with-my-father” syndrome. When I was sixten I had a bad relationship with my father. Sorry not all of us could grow up in functional households, you fucking asshole.



Have you even read it? (Not the Bible.) Would rather read the bible


Sometimes I wonder if I’m the last person who believes words have actual meanings. You don’t just get to call it ‘stupid’ just because you disagree, or you dislike it. (This also is a piss-poor excuse for an argument.) Henry Kissinger is a repulsive caricature of a human being, among other things, but he is not stupid. I don’t get to call him or his vile tomes ‘stupid’ just because I dislike him. I can call what I want stupid. Freedom of speech LOLOLOL

But really, I think his analysis of the role of the state is stupid. Of course that's entirely based off of what I've gathered from arguing with people like you. I have more important things to read.


Prove what? Both of those statements are incontrovertible facts. Nationalizing healthcare would cut people’s medical costs in half, and provide medical care for millions of uninsured or underinsured people. The most commonly cited figure is about 45 million uninsured, if we include the underinsured, it’s more likely a bigger number. It’s estimated at least 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have medical coverage, I guarantee you the real number is substantially bigger. But, hey, who gives a fuck, right? Prove that Chomsky has helped more working class people than I. How do you even measure that? If Chomsky is encouraging further dependence on the state, then I would personally argue that he hasn't helped the working class.

I have no doubt that socialized healthcare would be really helpful for working people within capitalism. I am currently living without healthcare myself. But I'll address this more further on.



As for Chomsky, I’m not going to write his fucking biography, but he has been a crusader for human rights around the world for over half a century, and along with very few contemporaries, like the late great Howard Zinn, provides a shining example of being both a great academic and a great activist.That's cool.



Only because you have a very limited, black and white conception of it. For the very same reason Anarchists aren’t championing deregulation, or trying to get rid of the EPA, or Social Security. Yes, technically, these actions would result in less government. However, that’s entirely missing the point. This is one of the huge differences between Anarchism and American far-right ‘Libertarians”. Anarchism is socialist, and (therefore) secular humanist in nature. No real Anarchist would support those positions because; A-It’s really going to hurt people, especially poor people., and B-You’re just replacing the state, which could be held accountable, with completely unaccountable private tyrannies. I don’t think either of those possibilities are especially attractive. I understand the differences between anarchism and US Libertarianism. I've been around the block at least once, bud.

I just assume that people who say they are anti-state are actually anti-state. Not just, like, sort of against the state. The state is a repressive organ that attacks working people, and any continued dependence on it is detrimental to working class self-liberation. It would be like me saying that I'm anti-racist, but only sort of anti-racist. It's ridiculous to place yourself in that dichotomy but not fully understand it.



However, everything else says the exact opposite. If you care about the working class you do everything to help them, wherever you can. You choose the lesser evil. That’s what you do if you actually care. If you can’t get everybody out of a burning building, you don't just say; “Fuck it.” And let everybody burn, if you care, you help to the degree you can. You said you’re against national healthcare because it doesn’t lead to the culmination of your macho, atavistic fantasy. That isn’t saying; “I care about the working class.”, that’s saying; “Fuck the working class.” Now you're just being dishonest. And a complete moron. There is nothing macho about self-sustainability or self-liberation, and if there is something macho about both of those then I would argue that using macho with a negative connotation in such a context is stupid (lol I said it again). I don't know where you're getting my understanding of what a revolution would look like, because I haven't really said anything about it. The subject of this thread isn't even revolutionary (denying a platform to fascists and racists). I've seen you do this very thing in another thread, and it seems like anyone that even hints at being against reform is a brute or a savage.

I'm going to move this part to right here since it seems relevant.

That’s a misunderstanding of the issue. The issue is do you support feeding the slaves while slavery still exists? I would say, yes. That’s the difference. I don't think the relationship between slave-master and slave is very different than the one between state/capital and worker. The slave master understands that in order for his slaves to function properly and create capital for him, he needs to take care of them to some degree. The same goes with workers and the ruling class. Yes, food stamps, welfare, socialized healthcare, etc., make survival under capitalism easier, but it does nothing to change their condition, which is what I am interested in doing. I could easily say that you do not truly care for the working class because what you propose is continued wage-slavery, regardless of your intentions.



]I’m saying there are many different kinds of revolutions, using many different methods. I think revolutionary violence, as I’ve said, should meet several specific criteria; it must be warranted by the circumstances, there must not be a viable alternative, and there must be a substantial certainty that it won’t ultimately result in a greater backlash and making things worse than they were to start with. That just sort of makes sense. In Chechnya, or Beijing, you’d probably have to use violence because these are in oppressive police states. However, thankfully, we live under different circumstances, in a dramatically more free society. We actually have, albeit limited, mechanisms to hold the state accountable.

Do you really think that if a worker uprising happened, the US would continue to operate as the same "free" democracy that we have now? As soon as workers rise up you will see the very ugly face of brutal fascism out in the open, but calling itself the defender of freedom.




I’d say he’s an Anarchist, but you’d have to be able to make that determination, yourself. I would say he is sympathetic to anarchism.


[FONT=Verdana]He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” Essentially it’s the same thing Niemoller was saying, what Chomsky was saying. It's the same idea. I am not arguing for legislation against freedom of speech for precisely this reason, which I have already stated multiple times.


Perhaps, however the bigger issue is that it’s philosophically consistent, moreover it’s the only consistent position. It seems like support for legal freedom of speech is just as much a position of survival.


I’m not interested in speculating. I wasn't actually asking you to guess. I answered that question in the next line.


To an extent, yes. This has nothing to do however, with the fact that you absolutely have freedom of speech. In fact, more so than virtually anywhere in the industrialized world. My point is that if people have the right to freedom of association, then they have the right to kick fascists and racists out of their neighborhoods. It's the same thing that you've been talking about with bosses and such. They can say whatever they want legally, no one is contesting that. But what they say will have consequences. And if someone is spouting racist or fascist shit in an anti-fascist/anti-racist neighborhood, then they are going to get beat/kicked out.

Again, I am not arguing against legal freedom of speech. There are far too many dangerous consequences for that, and I do not believe in using the state to solve my problems.



That might be how I’d explain it to a 10-year-old, but that’s far from adequate. Then don't place yourself into that dichotomy.


You’re never going to do that until you can provide a viable alternative that actually meets people’s needs, no sooner. I do not need to provide anything because I'm just one guy, and I will not be leading the revolution.

[Bud Struggle]

But this same thing happens in capitalist society too but you don't suggest we dump capitalism over it.

I would say that.

What gives me the MOST freedoms is the political philosophy I am for. Right now Capitalism works best--you need a couple of bucks to be heard--but Capitalism gives you the opportunity to earn those bucks.

You can call a Congressman, a Senator, etc. And they listen--they may not vote in your direction--but I have to say, they listen. I've been poor and rich and I never had any problem with elected officials listening to me.

Though they definitley listen more closely now that I have some money--I'll grant you that.

Try it. You'd be suprised.

[#FF0000]

I would say that.

What gives me the MOST freedoms is the political philosophy I am for. Right now Capitalism works best--you need a couple of bucks to be heard--but Capitalism gives you the opportunity to earn those bucks.

You can call a Congressman, a Senator, etc. And they listen--they may not vote in your direction--but I have to say, they listen. I've been poor and rich and I never had any problem with elected officials listening to me.

Though they definitley listen more closely now that I have some money--I'll grant you that.

Try it. You'd be suprised.

So we can't have all this in a society where racist organizations aren't given permits to demonstrate, I guess?

EDIT: I think the biggest problem in this discussion is people are speaking too broadly and talking about "rights" in a really broad sense. What you guys are talking about, fascists not being allowed to demonstrate, happens in the U.S. already. You can have free speech and a relatively open society and have laws against hate speech. When it comes to fascists, really, it's a "Fire in a crowded theater" thing.

EDIT 2: I harass PA state legislators all the time.

[Bud Struggle]

I understand the differences between anarchism and US Libertarianism. I've been around the block at least once, bud.


Stop calling him "Bud."

I'm Bud.

Don't get us confused. :mad:

[RGacky3]

So we can't have all this in a society where racist organizations aren't given permits to demonstrate, I guess?

Ok, so the government gets to choose who gets permits?


EDIT: I think the biggest problem in this discussion is people are speaking too broadly and talking about "rights" in a really broad sense. What you guys are talking about, fascists not being allowed to demonstrate, happens in the U.S. already. You can have free speech and a relatively open society and have laws against hate speech. When it comes to fascists, really, it's a "Fire in a crowded theater" thing.

No its not, there are strict rules to incitement, and fascists push that line, but you know what, if you make that distinction, people who are racist, then in reality the government could ban speach for people that are against certain religions, because it is considered bigotry.

Again, freedom of speach is neccessary for democracy, and democracy is neccessary for socialism, if your a socialist and you want to be consistant you pretty much have to be for free speach, other wise, your kind of a hypocrite.


But this same thing happens in capitalist society too but you don't suggest we dump capitalism over it.

So what? It does happen in capitalism and it should be opposed, that does'nt justify throwing freedom of speech under the buss (and thus your consistancy).

[Hit The North]

As if anyone listens to the media. The people control the ratings and the ratings control the media. It's not about propaganda--it's about SALES in this Capitalist system.


You seem to have forgotten the way the media behaved during the rush to war in Iraq. The way it always falls behind the interests of the rich and powerful and helps to facilitate their needs. Not about propaganda? Where have you been living this century?


That's 1984. No thanks. I rather keep Capitalism's freedoms--at least we have something of a say. Well, I don't advocate that a socialist society should suppress freedom of speech during its normal day-to-day functioning. A society founded on the democratic control of the direct producers would have a far more democratic media than currently persists in modern capitalism where ownership of media is concentrating into fewer hands. And I agree: the freedoms won under capitalism should be preserved under socialism, except where they contradict the abolition of private property. Like Marx and Engels, I see socialism as the completion of the promise of the Enlightenment: the final foundations of a humane society in which all individuals are free to develop their capacities.


As they would have the right to mobilize against you.
This is a given. All the more reason to keep them small and marginalised.


To date Communism has had a splendid history of selling out the Proletariat to gain power. Let's hope for something better in the future.Yeah. It's a future which needs to be fought for.

[RGacky3]

As if anyone listens to the media. The people control the ratings and the ratings control the media. It's not about propaganda--it's about SALES in this Capitalist system.

Your right Bud, and who has the money to make the sales, oh yeah giant corporations that PAY the media. (1% of the country have more wealth than the bottom 90%, and thus when you say SALES controlled, you mean plutocracy run by those folk).


And I agree: the freedoms won under capitalism should be preserved under socialism, except where they contradict the abolition of private property. Like Marx and Engels, I see socialism as the completion of the promise of the Enlightenment: the final foundations of a humane society in which the all individuals are free to develop their capacities.


Thats what I'm talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

Hmmm. I'm embarassed Comrade for taking such a "tone" against you. Your reply was well thought out and well reasoned.


You seem to have forgotten the way the media behaved during the rush to war in Iraq. The way it always falls behind the interests of the rich and powerful and helps to facilitate their needs. Not about propaganda? Where have you been living this century?

True--but the way to combat that in the future would be o build an anti establishment media--not to limit media.



Well, I don't advocate that a socialist society should suppress freedom of speech during its normal day-to-day functioning. A society founded on the democratic control of the direct producers would have a far more democratic media than currently persists in modern capitalism where ownership of media is concentrating into fewer hands. And I agree: the freedoms won under capitalism should be preserved under socialism, except where they contradict the abolition of private property. Like Marx and Engels, I see socialism as the completion of the promise of the Enlightenment: the final foundations of a humane society in which the all individuals are free to develop their capacities. I can't agree more.


This is a given. All the more reason to keep them small and marginalised. Yes.


Yeah. It's a future which needs to be fought for. You should be in OI you make so much sense. :D

[#FF0000]

No its not, there are strict rules to incitement, and fascists push that line, but you know what, if you make that distinction, people who are racist, then in reality the government could ban speach for people that are against certain religions, because it is considered bigotry.

Except people can hold these dumb opinions. They just can't organize a rally based around racism and bigotry. I don't think that's unreasonable but I don't think it's good or necessary even.


So what? It does happen in capitalism and it should be opposed, that does'nt justify throwing freedom of speech under the buss (and thus your consistancy).

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's stupid to prefer capitalism over communism because "free speech' when it doesn't exist in any meaningful capacity in capitalism anyway.

[Hit The North]

First of all it's just sort of basic logic. To begin with, it really isn't feasible or even desireable to give everyone a time slot on television, especially during primetime hours.


Yeah, you're right, the TV guide would be too unwieldy :rolleyes:.


Even in an Anarchist society there would be some sort of regulation, a show would have to be able to drum up sufficient ratings, etc.

Your brand of anarchism makes me chuckle. It's like just another layer of management or a sensible pair of shoes.


There are a lot of people who claim to be Anarchists, I'm not responsible for all of them, obviously, there's going to be a few jokers in the crowd. I'd suggest that you're probably not responsible for any of them as you appear to have mistaken anarchism for your liberalism.

[Barry Lyndon]

Putting 'free speech' into perspective:

What people are often not aware of is the fact that the Wiemar Republic was one of the most liberal, democratic, and open capitalist societies in modern history. The Nazis simply exploited its openess in order to murder, beat and terrorize their political opponents while retreating behind the banner of 'free speech' and 'free press' when it suited them, until they were able to finally seize power and destroy the remaining democratic institutions entirely.

The 'neutral' liberal democratic capitalist state aided and abetted this process by dealing very harshly with the violence committed by Marxists and anarchists while treating the violence of the fascists with kid gloves. The reason for this is obvious-the left wing threatened the existing class structure in Germany, while the Nazis, at least initially did not. That is why Hitler got a sentence of eight months for his coup de tat in Bavaria, while Rosa Luxemburg was imprisoned, shot dead and thrown into a canal.

It is estimated that in the period of 1919-23, Left Wing groups committed about 28 political murders. 38 people were found guilty by the German courts, and averaged 15 years in prison. 10 of those convicted were executed.
Right Wing groups in the same period committed 354 political murders. 326 of these murders were not even prosecuted by the courts. 23 of those convicted of the murders were discharged after pleading guilty! 24 were convicted, and the average prison sentence was four months. None were executed.

A particularly dramatic example as why 'free speech' is no protection from fascism, and is in fact a tool fascists use to seize control, and eventually to round up and exterminate the left.

Main source for these statistics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peb_1h-KEEs&feature=related

[RGacky3]

I accidentally edited this post instead of replying to it and I'm trying to fix it oh god I'm sorry - The Dumbest Mod In The World

[Barry Lyndon]

Thats a problem of Capitalism and judicial corruption, not free speach.

No, it indicates that free speech can never really exist in a capitalist society, and that when it is invoked it is a cover by the right to suppress the left. As long as we play by the rules of a rigged game, we are going to lose.

[Ele'ill]

I accidentally edited this post instead of replying to it and I'm trying to fix it oh god I'm sorry - The Dumbest Mod In The World


Someone screenshot this. :thumbup1:

[McCroskey]

Here´s an example: In the University of Barcelona, between 1998-2000, one of the students was Pedro Varela. Mr. Varela was the leader of CEDADE, a nationalsocialist "cultural" organisation in Spain, and a branch of a much bigger nazi organisation in Europe. Mr Varela was still by then awaiting trial. His bookstore in Seneca Street had been raided by the police, 15000+ books had being seized as nazi propaganda, and he even managed to get a "B" on a paper on history in which he denied the holocaust, on the basis that they were evaluating composition skills, and not historical accuracy. The left wing union Progressive Students Association battled to have him expelled from the faculty. They would set up stalls, interrupt classes, etc. The nazis struck back: The Progressive Students Association´s central office was even raided by someone (no prize for guessing who, although the police never caught the guys who did it) and the administrator knocked unconscious with a rifle butt, all the paperwork destroyed, and a message telling them to stick to student representation and ecological stuff.
This kind of resistance and the pressure on the university board to deny this person a platform eventually led to a popular response in the city: pressure on the authorities to surpress CEDADE, confiscation of their assets, etc (even managing to get the council to rename the section of the Seneca Street where the Europe nazi bookshop was into "Anna Frank Street"). The popular mood shifted from a position of "free speech even for this guy, he´s got the right to go to uni", to a position of reject, when people were made aware of the filth this people were distributing using their apparently "normal" bookstore.
Now, the students were not dealing with a bunch of racist skinheads flying swastikas, they were dealing with a serious, tie-wearing, dangerous leader of a self proclaimed nationalsocialist international organisation. In this case, it was clear that NO PLATFORM should be given to this person whatsoever. Every occasion when this person was granted freedom to express this views, in our eyes, was dangerous. Not because he could change people´s minds into fascism, or that he would somehow convince and convert people, but because he was giving a clear message to current fascists on where to find help and where to organise, thus making possible the creation of a big, well-organised fascist organisation.
If you want to let a racist have their word, ok, do it. People will see that it´s all bullshit, anyway. If you want to give a FASCIST a platform, you are allowing them to consolidate and turn it into a call to all fascists for organisation, and that is the dangerous thing. Fascism is not a problem just for the minorities, it´s a problem to ALL of us. It´s not an ideology, it´s a dogma, a dogma imposed on people through the monopolisation of violence, in a much more drastic way than other forms of capitalism, that need to be shown as respectable. I am all for freedom of speech for people ready to discuss and try to explain their point of view. Fascists don´t work that way. If capitalism is the equivalent of a disease that slowly kills human beings, in its fascist form, it is the equivalent of a gunshot to the head.
No platform for fascists.

[NGNM85]

EDIT: I think the biggest problem in this discussion is people are speaking too broadly and talking about "rights" in a really broad sense. What you guys are talking about, fascists not being allowed to demonstrate, happens in the U.S. already.

As it should, and it should be just as permissible in any future society we might hope to create. Any so-called socialist vision of a society that represses dissent, that censors speech, is nothing I want any part of and would be ethically and morally bound to oppose.



You can have free speech and a relatively open society and have laws against hate speech. When it comes to fascists, really, it's a "Fire in a crowded theater" thing.

No, there's a difference. The "Fire!" thing is an example of a declaration of "immenant lawless action", like a death threat. Hate speech does not necessarily apply. For example, it's legal to call someone a "Nigger", or some other epithet, to their face. (Although, I'd certainly expect a reaction.) It's also perfectly legal to stand outside a synagogue and distribute neo-Nazi propaganda as long as you're on the sidewalk, and not blocking the entrance or doing anything else illegal. It only becomes illegal when it's an immenant threat. Like, they can say "We wanna get rid of all the Jews!" but if they say; "We're going to get rid of all the Jews, in Trenton, NJ, on Tuesday, at around nine-ish." they're legally liable.

Hate crimes statutes are tacked on to people who've already comitted crimes that are specifically comitted against a targeted group. For instance, if a gang of skinheads smash up a synagoge and spraypaint swastikas, they get charged with destruction of property, etc., then they get an amplified sentence because it was motivated by ethnic hatred, and hate crimes are a form of terrorism. However, there has to be an initial crime for that to apply.

[Ele'ill]

I don't believe in free speech within the society we're in now because it's rigged.

[NGNM85]

I don't believe in free speech within the society we're in now because it's rigged.

I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but this isn't the way to say it. Obviously, we have free speech in America, as I said you can disseminate everything from NAMBLA literature, to neo-Nazi propaganda, to instructions on how to manufacture explosives from household items. The United States is about the most progressive country in the world in this respect. What I think you're getting at is the fact that people have no control over their productive lives, and the fact that virtually all mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations who tend to present a very slanted perspective. These are both very real problems, niether of which, obviously, would be benefitted by less freedom of speech, that isn't a laudable goal. What I think you're saying is that freedom of speech is great, but it isn't decreasing the disparity in income (Although, it could be helpful in this respect.) or change the fact that the major networks essentially just parrot the official version of reality. That's true, and we could talk about different ways to fix those problems, in part, because, we have freedom of speech.

[Hiero]

While that's true--that's not the problem. The real issue is who is going to decide what is good for society to talk about what what isn't? You? Me?

You can't limit discussion of Fascists without, at least in part, becomming Fascist yourself.

That would be the majority of society. And that wouldn't make society fascist.

[RGacky3]

I don't believe in free speech within the society we're in now because it's rigged.


So the way to fix that is to ban some peoples speach?



I accidentally edited this post instead of replying to it and I'm trying to fix it oh god I'm sorry - The Dumbest Mod In The World


GODDAMN IT, that was a good post too.


No, it indicates that free speech can never really exist in a capitalist society, and that when it is invoked it is a cover by the right to suppress the left. As long as we play by the rules of a rigged game, we are going to lose.

Which is why you play outside of it, but trying to ban other peoples speach is rediculous, especially racists who are vilified anyway.


That would be the majority of society. And that wouldn't make society fascist.

But it would make democracy impossible and thus socialism.

[Hiero]

But it would make democracy impossible and thus socialism.

We all know the reciepe for making a democratic socialist cake, add a hint of fascism...

If society chooses that it does not want facsism to have a platform, it would be a democratic choice.

Socialist Democracy is not a paradoxical reality where everything can existance at once. It is democracy in the hands of the proleteriat and for the proleteriat. The complete absence of fascist ideas would not inhibit the working of the socialist economy on democratic lines. I don't know where people get this idea that free speech and democracy mean allowing the freedom for everyone to do anything they want. We get so caught in our own propaganda.

Secondly we protect many people from real violence when anti-fa actively distrupt their organisations. Even the laws in the capitalist society baning NAZI parties protects people. Alot of Vietnamese people were bashed and stabed because of the NAZI and fascist parties in Australia, does it make sense while on one hand to criminalise their behaviour then on the other condone their right to preach for that behaviour?

Bassically what we are saying is "we heard your opinion, we suffered when your opinions were put into practice, so we crushed you in Germany and Italy and now we are not going to allowing you to engage democratically in a society that you verhemently oppose and contribute nothing to".

[RGacky3]

We all know the reciepe for making a democratic socialist cake, add a hint of fascism...

If society chooses that it does not want facsism to have a platform, it would be a democratic choice

You need free speach to have a democracy, now whats on the airwaves is a different thing, because thats a limited social resource.


Socialist Democracy is not a paradoxical reality where everything can existance at once. It is democracy in the hands of the proleteriat and for the proleteriat. The complete absence of fascist ideas would not inhibit the working of the socialist economy on democratic lines. I don't know where people get this idea that free speech and democracy mean allowing the freedom for everyone to do anything they want. We get so caught in our own propaganda.


Honestly I don't think in a socialist community fascism would exist, simply because its a rediculous ideology, the same reason monarchists don't exist anymore, but they arn't going to go away be restricting free speach. Free speech does'nt mean allowing people to do whatever they want, but it does mean they are allowed to SAY anything they want.


Secondly we protect many people from real violence when anti-fa actively distrupt their organisations. Even the laws in the capitalist society baning NAZI parties protects people. Alot of Vietnamese people were bashed and stabed because of the NAZI and fascist parties in Australia, does it make sense while on one hand to criminalise their behaviour then on the other condone their right to preach for that behaviour?

Banning a Nazi party is not gonna stop people from being racist and violent, not at all, heres waht you cimenalize VIOLENCE. Btw, yeah capiotalist societies ban nazi parties, but we're not looking up to what they do hopefully.


Bassically what we are saying is "we heard your opinion, we suffered when your opinions were put into practice, so we crushed you in Germany and Italy and now we are not going to allowing you to engage democratically in a society that you verhemently oppose and contribute nothing to".

No what your saying is "there is some speach that is acceptable and some that are not," when it comes to a real democracy those views will just fade because they are rediculous views, no one is gonna pay attention to them, in countries with free speach no one cares about nazis, they can say whatever they want but they are irrelivent, as soon as you start saying what speach is acceptable and what is'nt your essencially taking the fundamentals out of democracy.

[Hiero]

No what your saying is "there is some speach that is acceptable and some that are not,"


Thanks for communicating my point, now if only you could understand it.

[RGacky3]

Then I suppose you'd be ok with a religious community banning any sort of blasphomy, correct?

[Baseball]

I don't believe in ANY censorship at all, HOWEVER, I also believe that the main media should be democratically run, (which means if a society democratically does'nt want hate speach or obscene things on the airwaves they won't broadcast it, unlike how it works now, where its whoever has the money.)

However Legislating a bad on someones speach, to where you cannot personally say something destroys the very basis of democracy. Without total freedom of speach you can't have democracy, thats what makes you guys Authoritarian.

So in other words, a democratic system doesn't want certain types of things carried over the airwaves, can democratically prevent it.
But in doing so, it destroys democracy.

So how do you socialists resolve this conundrum?

[Baseball]

What you say on your own is your personal choice, thats individual freedom, what is on the airwaves is social, its something that should be democratically run.

Conundrum solved. You won't be thrown in jail for saying things the community democratically chooses not to broadcst

[Che a chara]

Then I suppose you'd be ok with a religious community banning any sort of blasphomy, correct?

Welcome to the 21st Century of the Free State of Ireland.

[Hiero]

Then I suppose you'd be ok with a religious community banning any sort of blasphomy, correct?

Why would you think that?

[Ele'ill]

I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but this isn't the way to say it. Obviously, we have free speech in America, as I said you can disseminate everything from NAMBLA literature, to neo-Nazi propaganda, to instructions on how to manufacture explosives from household items. The United States is about the most progressive country in the world in this respect. What I think you're getting at is the fact that people have no control over their productive lives, and the fact that virtually all mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations who tend to present a very slanted perspective. These are both very real problems, niether of which, obviously, would be benefitted by less freedom of speech, that isn't a laudable goal. What I think you're saying is that freedom of speech is great, but it isn't decreasing the disparity in income (Although, it could be helpful in this respect.) or change the fact that the major networks essentially just parrot the official version of reality. That's true, and we could talk about different ways to fix those problems, in part, because, we have freedom of speech.

Yes and RGacky too, I don't advocate denying free speech- I think that 'platform' is weighted with more than just free speech and I think the United States allowing 'free speech' but denying any of free speech's benefits sort of makes free speech not that free.

I also would argue that 'progressive' isn't 150 million dollars in security to prepare for someone or a group's free speech and then 10-20 thousand riot police surrounding them during it.

Free speech- regardless of what definitions you look up- means unhampered expression of ideas through verbal 'exchange'-

'Platform' - no

Free speech - yes

[RGacky3]

Why would you think that?

Because the principle is exactly the same.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes and RGacky too, I don't advocate denying free speech- I think that 'platform' is weighted with more than just free speech and I think the United States allowing 'free speech' but denying any of free speech's benefits sort of makes free speech not that free.

I also would argue that 'progressive' isn't 150 million dollars in security to prepare for someone or a group's free speech and then 10-20 thousand riot police surrounding them during it.

Free speech- regardless of what definitions you look up- means unhampered expression of ideas through verbal 'exchange'-

'Platform' - no

Free speech - yes

Well in the USA that's how it works for everyone that isn't the Democratic or Republical Party. That plan certainly keeps down the Fascists--but it also keeps down the Socialists Parties, the Worker's Parties and Communists.

That's the trade off.

[Hiero]

Because the principle is exactly the same.

No it's not. It's like saying that masturbation and sex has the same principle because there is an orgasm.

[RGacky3]

No it's not. It's like saying that masturbation and sex has the same principle because there is an orgasm.

No its not, if you believe racism can be restricted democratically, because it is a dispicable idea and people don't want to hear it, the same thing should be ok for religious communities, why not?


Well in the USA that's how it works for everyone that isn't the Democratic or Republical Party. That plan certainly keeps down the Fascists--but it also keeps down the Socialists Parties, the Worker's Parties and Communists.

That's the trade off.

Not at all, not fascists (as in brown shirts/hitler solute) are margenalized naturally, no one cares, as are stalinist people, however when it comes to socialist ideas, those are Consciously suppressed by the ruling class, because those ideas are a real threat. Racism and fascist elements exist in the ruling class, its not called fascism, but its there, socialist elements are consiously suppressed because it threatens their hedgemony. You need to start looking at the actual ideas and principles, not just the labels.

[Bud Struggle]

Not at all, not fascists (as in brown shirts/hitler solute) are margenalized naturally, no one cares, as are stalinist people, however when it comes to socialist ideas, those are Consciously suppressed by the ruling class, because those ideas are a real threat. Racism and fascist elements exist in the ruling class, its not called fascism, but its there, socialist elements are consiously suppressed because it threatens their hedgemony. You need to start looking at the actual ideas and principles, not just the labels.


There is no difference between mentioning "Fascist" and "Communist" to most workers. Socialism is a bad word. Workers are nationalistic and religious--they may WANT Socialism, but it is so badly packaged and sold to them that no one knows what it stands for.

Right now they both Democratic and Republican--nothing else.

[RGacky3]

Workers are nationalistic and religious--they may WANT Socialism, but it is so badly packaged and sold to them that no one knows what it stands for.


So badly packaged? Who packages it? The corporate media? The government? Yeah, of coarse they are confused about it.

But again, look at the actual issues, most people are not at all supportive of any fascist principles, socialistic principles is the absolute opposite, like I said, its the corporate media that paints the picture.


Right now they both Democratic and Republican--nothing else.

When it comes to the ballot box, yeah.

[Hiero]

No its not, if you believe racism can be restricted democratically, because it is a dispicable idea and people don't want to hear it, the same thing should be ok for religious communities, why not?



Restrict racism because people don't want to hear it?

No because it promotoes violence and oppression against some of the most vulnerable people in society.

But hey, I guess for you living in daily terror and fear is worth the democratic idealism that mainstream society gets to experience. Or you have never thought about that in the first place.