Are we Intollerant?

[Red Menace]

I have been dealing with this issue for a while now, and as leftists, we tend to be so tollerant that we are intollerant. We hate, hate. There was a video a while back posted on here of a fascist sitting on bus not bothering anyone, and one or two commies ambushed him and beat the shit out of him. I know what you guys are gonna say "they do the same to us" so then two wrongs make a right. We become the fascists, by silencing others with different opinions. Now if they were taking considerable force towards us, I can understand us rettaliating back. but I just don't think it is right. What do you guys think?

[Ol' Dirty]

Many Socialists are very intolerant of religious folk, and people of other ideologies, essxpecialy the far left. It's really disguisting.

[RedSabine]

I've noticed this. On this site, espessially on OI when debating a cappie or something, they just say "You don't know waht you're talking about, you're an idiot" etc etc etc. Not all, but quite a few.

[rouchambeau]

We become the fascists, by silencing others with different opinions.
That's one of the stupidest things I think I will ever read on RevLeft. Try reading up on fascism and it's history.

http://www.prole.info/pamphlets/insurrectionsdie.pdf

[Phugebrins]

Personally, I'm all for giving fascists a long length of free speech, so they can go hang themselves with it, rather than claiming to be repressed. Their arguments crumble easily under the cold light of reason, so there's no need to repress them.

That said, there's no reason not to counter-demonstrate. Furthermore, should any fascist actually try to impose their beliefs on other rather than just practicing armchair fascism, then we defend the victims for all we're worth.

[black magick hustla]

Yes, we are intolerant.

Is there something wrong with that?

Is there something wrong with not tolerating reaction and racism?

This is not the liberal-left, this is the revolutionary left.

[LSD]

I have been dealing with this issue for a while now, and as leftists, we tend to be so tollerant that we are intollerant.

We do?

Personally, I wouldn't say that I'm "tolerant" at all; it's simply not my place to "tolerate".

It's not "tolerance" to support gay rights or oppose racism, it's just basic materialist common sense. Similarly, opposing fascism is not a matter of "intolerance", it's just a matter of fundamental self-defense.

By turning core leftist politics into issues of "principle", you buy into liberal idealist myth or, even worse, conservative propaganda. "Tolerance" is an implicitly condescending approach to issue politics. It implies that we have some sort of right to "accept" or "not accept" others' freedoms.

It also assumes that discrmination is a primarily psychological phenomenon and that all it takes to defeat it are some "good feelings". In reality, of course, there are powerful concerted economic interests behind most if not all forms of institutional discrimination and no amount of "tolerance training" will change their minds.

Revolution is not a "tolerant" business. It's about forcibly taking power and cutting down our enemies. Ee cannot be "tolerant" of elites, they are a material threat to our interests as a class and as a people.

If that seems "hateful" to you, so be it. No one ever said that communism was about "love".


There was a video a while back posted on here of a fascist sitting on bus not bothering anyone, and one or two commies ambushed him and beat the shit out of him.

If he was just "sitting on [a] bus" how did anyone know that he was a "fascist"? Was he brandishing fascist symbols or perhaps making racist/fascistic comments?

Besides, this one "example" is hardly a demonstration of anything beyond the, perhaps, overeagerness of the two filmed "communists". It certainly doesn't "teach" us anything about the revolutionary left movement in general.

History has consistantly shown that, when given the opportunity, fascists will hunt us down and exterminate us. If a couple of anti-fascists got a little excited and beat up an "innocent" man, that's unfortunate, but it's hardly a vindiction of the far-right.


We become the fascists, by silencing others with different opinions.

No, by silencing others we become assholes. To become "fascists" we would have to be a part of a 19th century romantic petty-bourgeois reaction to working class organization.

Seriously, can we please establish a moratorium on people using the word "fascist" when they have no idea what it means? <_<

Fascism is a specific kind of political and economic organization. It is not a synonym for "authoritarian" or "evil" or "nasty".


Many Socialists are very intolerant of religious folk

Religious "folk"? No. Religion? You&#39;re damn right.

Racism too. Sexism, homophobia, all forms of superstitious oppression, actually.


Personally, I&#39;m all for giving fascists a long length of free speech

Absolutely.

It&#39;s not a matter of "liking" fascists or what they say, it&#39;s a matter of recognizing that censorship in any form is an instrinsically corrosive institution. No body has the right to dictate what a democratic society can or cannot hear or read or see.

If you don&#39;t want to be exposed to fascist materialis, don&#39;t read them. You don&#39;t need the state to babysit your politics&#33;

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:20 PM
Personally, I&#39;m all for giving fascists a long length of free speech, so they can go hang themselves with it, rather than claiming to be repressed. Their arguments crumble easily under the cold light of reason, so there&#39;s no need to repress them.

That said, there&#39;s no reason not to counter-demonstrate. Furthermore, should any fascist actually try to impose their beliefs on other rather than just practicing armchair fascism, then we defend the victims for all we&#39;re worth.
Couldn&#39;t agree with you more.

In a post revolutionary society, the only group who have the right to silence fascists, capitalists, religious believers, etc will be the masses. The party or any form of transitional period governance should have no part of dealing with these individuals. However, the people should be discouraged to use violence, unless it is neccessary. Once the benefits of a prospering post-revolutionary society are reaped, the arguments of our political enemies will fall on deaf ears. At this point, these enemies will only have two choices. The first being to give up their views and become assimilated into collective society. The second being to use violence, in which case they will be eliminated by the people.

Giving the transitional government the absolute power to protect the revolution by suppressing political enenmies is folly. Absolute power will always corrupt. Without a "pure" form of governance all that was fought for in the revolution will be lost. Only the people, by themselves, can protect the revolution.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:28 PM
No one ever said that communism was about "love"
"The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love" - Che Guevara

[violencia.Proletariat]

"The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love" - Che Guevara

And Che loved all those reactionaries he shot :rolleyes:


Personally, I&#39;m all for giving fascists a long length of free speech, so they can go hang themselves with it, rather than claiming to be repressed. Their arguments crumble easily under the cold light of reason, so there&#39;s no need to repress them.

Maybe 100 years from now when fascism becomes as irrelevant as kings and queens in the first world countries. Suppression of speech would be purley on a democratic decision of the community. So no one is going to be listening to their fucking complaints anyways.


Furthermore, should any fascist actually try to impose their beliefs on other rather than just practicing armchair fascism, then we defend the victims for all we&#39;re worth.

What fascist doesn&#39;t do this? When given the oppertunity, fascists ALWAYS take it to the next level. Lets stop that before it happens.


All you liberals who whine about free speech, have you ever really looked at the situation? If you give fascist equal access to press they will be using ALL of their effort to DESTROY you. Does that sound like a good idea?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

"The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love" - Che Guevara

I didn&#39;t see the word "communism" anywhere in that statement.

[MolotovLuv]

Why should we have to "tolerate" intolerance?

[Jazzratt]

Of course we&#39;re fucking well intolerant and a damn good thing too. We don&#39;t tolerate the conditions undwer which we are forced to live, we don&#39;t tolerate those that seek to uphold or worsen them. I sure as fuck loathe a lot of people. I don&#39;t remember when MArx or any other major theorist said we should bring about change by being tolerant and handing out fucking flowers.

[LSD]

Suppression of speech would be purley on a democratic decision of the community.

"Democratic censorship" is a contradiction in terms. It is theoretically and practically impossible to implement.

Either you have a censoring governing elite or you don&#39;t suppress speech. There&#39;s no third option.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

If you plan to replace the current system with more violence and intolerance, you have no business calling yourself a revolutionary. It doesn&#39;t matter if its all aimed at things you perceive as “evils”.

[MolotovLuv]

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 31 2006, 12:27 AM
If you plan to replace the current system with more violence and intolerance, you have no business calling yourself a revolutionary. It doesn&#39;t matter if its all aimed at things you perceive as “evils”.
I&#39;m not even sure what to make of your comment. First of all, what do you think the revolution is going to be like, handing roses to the capitalists and asking them to please not oppress us anymore? We don&#39;t have to tolerate opinions and ideas that are harmful to others. A revolution will have to be intolerant.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:21 PM

Suppression of speech would be purley on a democratic decision of the community.

"Democratic censorship" is a contradiction in terms. It is theoretically and practically impossible to implement.

Either you have a censoring governing elite or you don&#39;t suppress speech. There&#39;s no third option.
If large majorities wish to suppress count revolutionary information from being published on community presses, how exactly does that make them a governing elite? The suppression of speech would not be as you would imagine a totalitarian state. They can speak all they want, make their own homemade phamplets, w/e. But utilizing community resources to print counter revolutionary material should not be tolerated.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:27 PM
Yes, we are intolerant.

Is there something wrong with that?

Is there something wrong with not tolerating reaction and racism?

This is not the liberal-left, this is the revolutionary left.
hear hear&#33;

these are scum - they need to realise that their racism, homophobia and anti-semetism will not be tolerated.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:39 AM
I&#39;m not even sure what to make of your comment. First of all, what do you think the revolution is going to be like, handing roses to the capitalists and asking them to please not oppress us anymore? We don&#39;t have to tolerate opinions and ideas that are harmful to others. A revolution will have to be intolerant.
The revolution may have to be earned in blood, this is true, but if you continue to pay your debts with blood after you&#39;ve ascended to power, then you&#39;re only paving the way for future hate, violence, and eventually more revolution, this time aimed against you. How funny it would be to see the Capitalists plotting to overthrow the evil Socialist Regime.

[Comrade Phil]

violencia.Proletariat

All you liberals who whine about free speech, have you ever really looked at the situation? If you give fascist equal access to press they will be using ALL of their effort to DESTROY you. Does that sound like a good idea?

Firstly, if the people have united together to overthrow the bourgeoisie hierarchy why would they become influenced in any way by facsists/capitalists who wish to restore this hierarchy? Secondly, the only way to censor our political enemies, is to censor the entire population as everyone has the potential to become a political enemy. So then the party would become the only means of providing information. This will only lead to corruption as there will be no other sources to challenge the information the party provides.

The people should remain vigilant and be prepared to take up arms against any violent counter-revolutionary action. Non violent opposition should be neutralized through debate and/or indifference.

Jazzratt

I don&#39;t remember when MArx or any other major theorist said we should bring about change by being tolerant and handing out fucking flowers.

Marx also never said that after the revolution we should send non-violent political dissenters to Gulags...

LSD

Either you have a censoring governing elite or you don&#39;t suppress speech. There&#39;s no third option.

I concur.

MolotovLuv

I&#39;m not even sure what to make of your comment. First of all, what do you think the revolution is going to be like, handing roses to the capitalists and asking them to please not oppress us anymore? We don&#39;t have to tolerate opinions and ideas that are harmful to others. A revolution will have to be intolerant.

The revolution will have to be intolerant in order to ensure success but once the post-revolutionary society has become stable, as a matter of protecting the purity of the revolution we must become tolerant.

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:42 AM
The suppression of speech would not be as you would imagine a totalitarian state. They can speak all they want, make their own homemade phamplets, w/e. But utilizing community resources to print counter revolutionary material should not be tolerated.
Wouldn&#39;t all resources be community resources? Also where do you draw the line as to what information needs to be suppressed? Take a democratic council for example, where there are two major factions, both of which have diverging visions of how better serve the interests of post-revolution society. What if the majority faction decides to suppress the views of the minority faction and rule that all those who support the minority view are counter-revolutionary (thereby banning them from all democratic processes)? Now there is only one unquestionable view. Quite similar to the Stalinists purging the Troskyists and the rest of the Left Opposition. We must allow tolerance in order to protect democracy.

[LSD]

If large majorities wish to suppress count revolutionary information from being published on community presses, how exactly does that make them a governing elite?

It doesn&#39;t, it just makes them non-effective.

The role of censorship, after all, is to ostensibly "protect" society from whatever "dangerous" ideas are being suppressed. If society as a whole is to effect this censorship, however, it nescessitates that they study this "dangerous" material prior to censoring it&#33;

You see? The only way that a society can be "shielded" from "reaction" is if they&#39;re not the one doing the shielding. And that means some sort of empowered elite "charged" with protecting the ideological "line".

Not only is that inherently anti-democratic, it&#39;s also inherently anti-communist. As no mater what you want to call this censoring body, it is for all intents and purposes a state -- the very thing that communism seeks to abolish.

A society cannot protect itself from ideas; democratic censorship is inherently contradictory. If people have to read something to determine whether it is "reactionary", they have to read it.

Which kind of defeats the whole censorship idea.


They can speak all they want, make their own homemade phamplets, w/e. But utilizing community resources to print counter revolutionary material should not be tolerated.

Ultimately, there are only two possible justifications for communist censorship and both of them fail.

Firstly, that it&#39;s an issue of "safety" and that the words of reactionaries are so dangerous that society must be protected from them at all costs; and secondly that it&#39;s simply a matter of saving resources.

The problem with the first one is, as I&#39;ve already outlined, that such protection cannot come from a majoritarian or democratic system. A person cannot be his own censor and therefore participatory decision making is impossible on this question.

That inherently nescessitates an elite of some sort, whether it is acknowledged as such or not and whether it is functionaly institutional or not, to make these decisions.

Whether it is a "government agency" or just the workers running the power station; if there&#39;s a minority determining "acceptability", the society is not free.

Insofar as the second possiblity, saving resources, it is equally ludicrous. A communist society is not about "efficiency", it&#39;s about liberty.

Many activies in a communist society would not be objectively "efficient", rather they would serve to maximize the bennefit of their actor. Making a guitar or a bottle rocket does not provide clear social bennefit, but both of these acts consume far more energy than putting up a website on an already running server.

The fact is that in the end, the only reason for advocating censorship is emotional. You hate fascists, you hate capitalists, and you hate the notion of their ideas being spread.

I can certainly understand this.

But communism is not about making everyone "happy", it&#39;s about making everyone free. And there is simply no way that such a society can incorporate suppression.

It&#39;ll mean a little more grinding of the teeth, but it will also mean a much more stable and functional society.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Firstly, that it&#39;s an issue of "safety" and that the words of reactionaries are so dangerous that society must be protected from them at all costs; and secondly that it&#39;s simply a matter of saving resources.

The problem with the first one is, as I&#39;ve already outlined, that such protection cannot come from a majoritarian or democratic system. A person cannot be his own censor and therefore participatory decision making is impossible on this question.

That inherently nescessitates an elite of some sort, whether it is acknowledged as such or not and whether it is functionaly institutional or not, to make these decisions.

Whether it is a "government agency" or just the workers running the power station; if there&#39;s a minority determining "acceptability", the society is not free.

Why is it so much an issue of safety? If we just had a revolutio, defeated the bourgeoisie, the fascists, yadda yadda, are we going to let them speak? This isn&#39;t as much about protection as it is common sense. Why would you just let the people you defeated presumebly through your mass democratic organizations have an equal voice in the media as your organizations? This makes no sense at all. I personally invision that a community after defeating the bourgeois would be much more inclined to mob a group of bourgeois "expressing their opinions" than making resources available to them. Should we then send the militias to defend these capitalists free speech rights?


But communism is not about making everyone "happy", it&#39;s about making everyone free. And there is simply no way that such a society can incorporate suppression.

What are you going to do about antifa after the revolution?


The fact is that in the end, the only reason for advocating censorship is emotional. You hate fascists, you hate capitalists, and you hate the notion of their ideas being spread.

What if the community decided to limit capitalist propaganda because it could initiate acts of individual terrorism by individuals or small groups. This is not protecting the people from themselves, but from the small number of reactionaries still left. If the reactionaries think the bourgeois is dead/feld and NEVER coming back (by suppressing their organizations and local news outlets) they would be less likely to try and incite counter revolution.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:09 PM
Many Socialists are very intolerant of religious folk, and people of other ideologies, essxpecialy the far left. It&#39;s really disguisting.
No shit.

Leftists are against metaphysical conceptions and seek actively to dispell and destroy them.

Sorry if that wasn&#39;t printed on your invitation brochure.

[AlexJohnson]

I came to this site after debating with conservatives for 2 years on protestwarrior.com.

The amount of ad homs and mudslinging they use over there is rediculous. When I came to this site I was amazed at how down-to-earth, civil, and reasonable it is here compared to there.

Keep it up, the infantile behavior the "cappies" display only reveals how insecure they are inside. Everyone is so much more candid and lucid here, it&#39;s great.

At pw.com, there is so much bullshit to cut through that it&#39;s hard to get any kind of lucid debate out of them.

[LSD]

If we just had a revolutio, defeated the bourgeoisie, the fascists, yadda yadda, are we going to let them speak?

Yes. Unless you can come up with some demonstrable harm that doing otherwise would produce.

Revolution is not about "class spite". We fight the bourgeoisie because we have to, not because we enjoy it. "Hurting" the former capitalists would be a complete waste of time and worse than useless public policy.

We&#39;re not overthrowing the bourgoeisie to replace them with a worse oppression&#33; The revolutionary aftermath is a very delicate situation and a little too much overeagerness in "suppression" can derail the entire endeavour.

We don&#39;t want another Lenin ...or another Mao. Tha means no "iron discipline", no "ruling party", and no government suppression&#33;

Now, that might mean having to debate capitalists a lot longer than we might like to, but so long as we&#39;re on the wining side of history, who gives a damn? Revolution isn&#39;t about making revolutionaries happy, it&#39;s about emancipating the proletariat.

And censorship is fundamentally incompatible with an emancipated society.


This isn&#39;t as much about protection as it is common sense.

"Common sense" still needs to make sense.

It may not seem "fair" to allow "reactionaries" free speech, but as I already outlined, it&#39;s basically unavoidable in a free society.

Again, "democratic censorsihp" is simply an unworkable ideal. No society can "protect itself" from ideas and no one can act as their own censor.

If postrevolutionary society is to be truly majoritarian and participatory in nature, it would require that everyone have complete access to every document related to every decision. That would require keeping on file a copy of all censored materials.

In other words, any "reactionary" would be able to get their "fix" of "propaganda" by just attending public meetings&#33;

Unless you want to set up some elite "revolutionary guard" to clamp down on "unacceptable" speech, you&#39;re going to have to live with some distatestul material circulating.


Should we then send the militias to defend these capitalists free speech rights?

Yes.


What are you going to do about antifa after the revolution?

The same as we do with everyone else. Leave them alone unless they break the rules of the community.


What if the community decided to limit capitalist propaganda because it could initiate acts of individual terrorism by individuals or small groups.

The point is that it can&#39;t do that without establishing a de facto state to execute the censorship.

I mean, really, think about it. Who do you envisage culling through the internet searching for "reactionary" websites? Who do propose will have the authority to "shut them down"?

Again, there are only two ways to go about this. One, you take the cenralized route and set up a Committe for Public Safety or you take the RedStar route and allow each powerstation and webserver to set up its own "rules" for "acceptability".

Either way you end up with either statism of chaos, neither of which have anything to do with communism.


If the reactionaries think the bourgeois is dead/feld and NEVER coming back (by suppressing their organizations and local news outlets) they would be less likely to try and incite counter revolution.

Except cenorship doesn&#39;t kill ideas, it just makes them fester. And no one is stupid enough to believe that movement is dead merely because its proponents are being suppressed.

Remember, capitalists and "reactionaries" are going to be part of society too. They&#39;re going to be sitting in the meetings where censorship decrees are handed our and they&#39;ll be voting on propositions to shut down their presses.

The government can&#39;t "fool" the citizenry in a democratic society because democracy means that government is the citizenry.

I think the problem here is that you&#39;re approaching this issue as if there will be some post-revolutionary "government" that is detatched from the public at large. You need to divest yourself of that notion immediately.

Any postrevolutionary "transition government" will quickly "transition" into iron totalitarianism. That&#39;s what "transitional" governments do.

No matter how well-meaning or "revolutionary" politicians may be, the temptation to use one&#39;s power is simply too great for a politico -- especially a "radical" politico -- to resist.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 03:00 AM
The amount of ad homs and mudslinging they use over there is rediculous. When I came to this site I was amazed at how down-to-earth, civil, and reasonable it is here compared to there.

Um... Really? :unsure: Civil? Us?

Anyway, no of course we&#39;re intolerant of some things. I don&#39;t go around beating up fascists, mainly because they are pathetic and my daddy taught me not to kick a person once their on the ground, but if other lefties want to, it doesn&#39;t matter to me.

What matters to me is that we aren&#39;t intolerant to each other or to the working class. I don&#39;t care if some one thinks that anarchy or marxism or whatever is the best plan, just so long as they can all come together when the going gets tough, that&#39;s the sign of being truly tolerant. It&#39;s easy for us all to agree that fascism or racism or whateverism is bad and needs to end- it&#39;s much harder to say that you&#39;ll support a movement that&#39;s effective if it isn&#39;t the ism you agree with. I don&#39;t care if we piss off racists who&#39;ll never understand what we&#39;re working for, so long as we&#39;re able to be tolerant to people who, with patience and education, can join the workers in their struggle. That&#39;s a sign of tolerance too- if you can accept that people have different views, and treat those views and the person with enough respect to win them over to your side, then you&#39;ve proven your tolerant. Tolerance doesn&#39;t mean that you just accept someone without trying to change them- it means you accept that they deserve respect and are just like you are. If you still disagree with them, here&#39;s nothing wrong with that.*

I&#39;m talking about political/philosophical tolerance

[Phugebrins]

"If the reactionaries think the bourgeois is dead/feld and NEVER coming back (by suppressing their organizations and local news outlets) they would be less likely to try and incite counter revolution."
But if we have censorship policies, they could easily convince themselves they have massive but silent public support. Censorship creates a mystique around what&#39;s being hidden. Those who are against censorship may also be tempted to buy into the liberal-capitalist agenda as a reaction to the oppression they see associated with socialism - even if they would otherwise support socialism.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I have to agree with you. There are too many arrogant, chauvinistic "leftists" around.


There was a video a while back posted on here of a fascist sitting on bus not bothering anyone, and one or two commies ambushed him and beat the shit out of him.

Do you have a link?

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 04:57 PM

There was a video a while back posted on here of a fascist sitting on bus not bothering anyone, and one or two commies ambushed him and beat the shit out of him.

Do you have a link?
when I read the OP&#39;s description, this one jumped to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptzyCQoEs-Y

[LuXe]

You can say this;

"He&#39;s a fascist, and deserved it."

Although this person may stand for antisemitism, he has most likely NEVER killed any jews, or for that matter harmed any. Perhaps this applies to other people as well.

My opinion; If he makes a move (You know what,) then we can strike. Beat him senseless. But if he only states an opinion, this is no reason to attack him. He only states ignorance, not intolerance.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Yes.

So you would use violence against the proletariat if they wanted to stop a capitalist gathering post revolution? I doubt many militia members would be showing up that day.


The same as we do with everyone else. Leave them alone unless they break the rules of the community.

I don&#39;t think attacking fascists will be a community rule. So if it wasn&#39;t, what would you do about their "free speech" :rolleyes:


The point is that it can&#39;t do that without establishing a de facto state to execute the censorship.

Why would you need a state? Lets say a capitalist newspaper was brought to attention. Each neigborhood of the community could vote on whether or not to censor it. If it were to be censored, the militia (unarmed unless they needed to be) would go to their printing station and shut it down.

In your theory however, workers would be printing it just like everything else. I imagine in reality they would just refuse to print that garbage.

This is no less a state than your armed defense of capitalist free speech through the peoples militia.


Who do you envisage culling through the internet searching for "reactionary" websites? Who do propose will have the authority to "shut them down"?

A website isn&#39;t really a clue as to actual organization. The capitalists would need more official forms of organization (a meeting place, paper press) for it to actually have any influence.


Except cenorship doesn&#39;t kill ideas, it just makes them fester. And no one is stupid enough to believe that movement is dead merely because its proponents are being suppressed.

It makes it more difficult for it to grow. It makes a network of these people harder to make. Of course there will always be capitalists. We just need to make sure they aren&#39;t going to act on their ideas.

[Phugebrins]

Ok. For those of you who think attacking fascists is a perfectly good family affair for a Saturday afternoon: Can we also attack nonfascist authoritarian capitalists? What about libcaps, liberals and social democrats? What about Stalinists/Anarchists (delete as appropriate)? Where do we draw the line?

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:50 PM
You can say this;

"He&#39;s a fascist, and deserved it."

Although this person may stand for antisemitism, he has most likely NEVER killed any jews, or for that matter harmed any. Perhaps this applies to other people as well.

My opinion; If he makes a move (You know what,) then we can strike. Beat him senseless. But if he only states an opinion, this is no reason to attack him. He only states ignorance, not intolerance.
thats the point I was trying to make. I have no quarrels with beating a fascist.
but dammit, I won&#39;t do it, if he&#39;s using the same right I have. cause if i can say what I wanna say, but he can&#39;t, then that my comrades is oppression. Fuck oppression.

They are scum, and from their perspective, we&#39;re scum. I won&#39;t stupe down to their level.

[LSD]

So you would use violence against the proletariat if they wanted to stop a capitalist gathering post revolution?

No, "I" wouldn&#39;t do anything. Again, you&#39;re looking at this from a "governmental" perspective.

I would hope, however, that a postrevolution society would be organized along principles of social justice in which assault and violence is not tolerated regardless of the beliefs of the victims.

Tell me, if beating up "fascists" is acceptable, what else is? Killing them? How about raping them?

If some capitalist "****" refuses to stop peacably protesting, should we "teach her a lesson"? You know,"slap her around" a bit, maybe "fuck the capitalist outa her"? I mean, she&#39;s just a "fascist", so it&#39;s not like she has any rights...

I think you need to think long and hard about what kind of society you are endeavouring to create. Because a system in which people&#39;s social rights are dependent on them toeing the ideological line is anything but free ...and is hardly what I&#39;d call communist&#33;


Why would you need a state?

Because people cannot act as their own censor. The entire function of cenorship is to prevent exposure to the general public. "Democratic" censorship, however, would logically require that everyone read the material in question and then vote as to whether they should be allowed to read it.

It&#39;s nonsensical.

If a majority of the population does not want to read some website or newspaper, they won&#39;t. "Outlawing" it is pure paternalism, nothing more. It assumes that people are not smart enough to read "reaction" ...and yet, counterintuitively, your "democratic" model seems to somehow assume that people are smart enough to "vote" on what should be "censored".

Will you require full participation? What if most people just don&#39;t care about Web-site X and only 20% of the population vote. Will 50%+1 of that 20% constitute a sufficient "majority" to suppress the web-site?

Will 10% of the population have the authority to "call in the milita" &#39;cause some website is too "offensive" for them?

How is that any different from the fucking FCC?


Lets say a capitalist newspaper was brought to attention. Each neigborhood of the community could vote on whether or not to censor it.

And what if one "neighbourhood" votes yes and another votes no? Will the paper in question be banned in the one and permitted in the latter?

And exactly what percentage of the population must vote in favour of censorsihp before the "militia" is sent in? Is 50% + 1 enough for armed suppression? What if that 50% doesn&#39;t include the workers doing the printing ...or the militia?

And what will the process be for these "votes"? Will everyone read the material in question? If so, won&#39;t that give the paper a wider circulation than it could ever hope for on its own?

Won&#39;t it, in effect, inspire every nutcase to try printing his nonsense so that it can be polled for suppression and everyone gets a copy?

&#39;Cause if you&#39;re not proposing that the public reads the material in question, but rather "trusts" whomever "brought" the matter to "attention", you&#39;re heading straight back into republic-land.

Postrevolutionary governance needs to be as minimalist as possible. Human beings are easily bored and the business of politics is very easily manipulated by those who have the interest and patience to play the game.

Once you set up a system by which some body, whether it&#39;s ostensibly democratic or not, has the right to dictate what the general public can and cannot read, you necsessitate abuse.


If it were to be censored, the militia (unarmed unless they needed to be) would go to their printing station and shut it down.

Stop living in the 19th century. This isn&#39;t a matter of "printing stations".

It&#39;s a matter of televeision shows and radio programs and websites and podcasts and all the other communication innovations of the past 20 years, not to mention whatever ingenious new broadcast media we&#39;ll come up with in the next few decades.

There won&#39;t be one "central" "cappie press", they&#39;ll be dozens of borderline "reactionary" publications, all with their own ideas and style. Deciding which ones constitute genuine "reaction" and which are acceptable dissent is a full time job and will require a full time bureau.

Oh look, you just created a state. <_<


I imagine in reality they would just refuse to print that garbage.

Yeah? And what else might they refuse to print?

Look, there&#39;s a difference between editorial control and social censorsip. If a magazine collective does not want to include an article in their magazine, that&#39;s not censorship, it&#39;s just editorial freedom.

But what if a person starts a web-site? He runs a server from his home, it draws minimal power, and runs on the public network.

Some collective has to power his server, another has to maintain the network connection, probably another has to run the DNS host. If any one of those groups decided that they disagreed with the message on the website, they could effectively take it down.

Now, the question is should they be allowed to?

If the network administrators&#39; collective holds a vote and 51.89% of them determine that his material is reactionary, does that 51.89%, a definitive minority of the total population, have the right to determine what the rest of us can read?

In a population of two million, there would probably only be about 2-5 thousand workers running the network. That means that less than two thousand people would be in a position, at any given time, to determine the content of the internet ...if we grant them that power.

Because the alternative, the only alternative in fact, is to not.

To say that they are workers and they are respected and their job is important but they are obligated by the community to do that job objectively.

That even if they violently hate the content of a website, they still must keep it running.

Remember, I have still not defined what exactly was on the web-site at the beginning of this scenario. That&#39;s because it genuinely doesn&#39;t matter. All you have to know is that it&#39;s something that 51.89% of the network admins disagree with.

Should that really enough for suppression?

[Messiah]

Thank you for that post Ace. Really. Hearing intelligent, reasoned refutations of hate and bigotry on all sides of the spectrum just really helps. There&#39;s way, way too many people here who are just so full of it.

[Robocommie]

I think one thing to remember about Fascists and Communists is that Fascists would never question their right to stomp us into the ground. They&#39;d just do it. That&#39;s one big thing that separates us from them.

We&#39;re different because we&#39;re not lost to hate, and that what puts us on the winning side of history. We can&#39;t stomp fascists unprovoked because it just makes us fascists. It&#39;ll alienate the proletariat when they begin to see us as just another bunch of extremist thugs.

That&#39;s not to say if they come looking for a fight, the local Commie party shouldn&#39;t be ready to defend themselves.

[shorelinetrance]

Originally posted by Okocim+Aug 31 2006, 04:23 PM--> (Okocim @ Aug 31 2006, 04:23 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 04:57 PM

There was a video a while back posted on here of a fascist sitting on bus not bothering anyone, and one or two commies ambushed him and beat the shit out of him.

Do you have a link?
when I read the OP&#39;s description, this one jumped to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptzyCQoEs-Y [/b]
Anyone else get turned on by that video?

[chaz171]

There is intolerance. there is huge intolerance everywhere. not jsut against the fascists.....

mention trotsky to a stalinist you will see intolerance.

mention christianity to a maoist you see intolerance.

Intolerance of leftists against other leftists.

intolerance is the seed of fascism. intolerance against our fellow comrades when we should be united against the ultra right. not each other.....

[Dzerzhinsky]

Wait, you&#39;re just now coming to the conclusion now that leftists are intolerant?

If the thought police were an organization that existed today, this forum would make up the large part of it today.

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:47 AM
Wait, you&#39;re just now coming to the conclusion now that leftists are intolerant?

If the thought police were an organization that existed today, this forum would make up the large part of it today.
Yeah tell me about it, i made a comment about 9/11 and half the forum said i was a fascist.

[Red Menace]

Well, I have come to grips with this one. I always kinda believed in my civil rights, and the bill of rights, but as someone pointed out in a different topic, is that those rights are the ones that are keeping us bind to our chains.

I hate racists and those that discriminate. and I&#39;m not sure if they should be allowed to preach those messages of hate. but i guess they only thing I worry about then is, where will it stop. who will we censor next after the racists??

[Esplin]

Intolerant behaviour towards believers of other ideologies is wrong, no matter what they entail. Civil rights are some of the most important rights in the world. Even with distasteful ones such as facists and racists, which I personally believe none of them have any right to speak their beliefs unto others, still are allowed to choose what to believe in. If a time comes where communists begin to attack unprovoked their political opposites and enemies, is a time of madness indeed.
Having an antisemitist opinion is still an opinion that others disagree with. That is no reason to attack someone. We are above all things, deep down. People, not Communists, facists, racists or anything.


"What is the most important thing in the world?"

"It is people."

"It is people."
"It is people."
"It is people."

And shorelinetrance,


Anyone else get turned on by that video?

Please, stay on topic.

To Me&#33;