"No Racists Allowed" [Archive]

Political_Chucky

23rd June 2007, 18:16

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 23, 2007 08:01 am
No, that's the persecution that Racists did to black people. Martin Luther King Jr. worked to stop it his entire life, and was killed for it. So to commit the same segregation would be hypocritical, because we Anti-Racists worked so hard to stop it. I'm not talking about Fascists, I'm talking about Racists. Jim Crow Laws.
You speak of Racists like if they were some race or culture themselves. Racism is a thought which is developed for some reason in a persons mind set and is not something leftists condone. Comparing racists(who choose to believe whatever their race is more superior or bunk then the other) to people of African, Mexican, Asian, or whatever other descent there is, is ridiculous as race is not an ideology or a way of thinking, it’s a genetic trait. It makes no sense to bring up Martin Luther King Jr. into your logic because he believed in uniting with all races and stopping segregation within a discriminatory way. In your logic, we should be conversing with fascists, racists, and any other type people who see race as a superiority, as if there is no problem, which there is. We are not just speaking of banning White supremacists, or Mexican nationalists, the sign would have said no racists allowed, the entire group of these reactionary people which is not discriminatory in any sense besides “discrimination against Fascists, or Racists.”. I don't know who you are, but I seriously think you should reconsider your views on things if you actually believe the bullshit your posting on here.

On a lighter note, I think the sign is a great idea and wouldn't mind photo shopping some signs myself once I can get a hold of Photoshop and Illustrator for my comp. I took these classes for the programs, but my teacher didn't have them for windows so I couldn't burn them. :(

bezdomni

24th June 2007, 03:32

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 23, 2007 04:01 pm
No, that's the persecution that Racists did to black people. Martin Luther King Jr. worked to stop it his entire life, and was killed for it. So to commit the same segregation would be hypocritical, because we Anti-Racists worked so hard to stop it. I'm not talking about Fascists, I'm talking about Racists. Jim Crow Laws.
lol, are you joking?

Kropotkin Has a Posse

24th June 2007, 07:06

I get the feeling that MLK and his generation of anti-racists would have struggled to help racists "see the light," so to speak, instead of putting up the signs.

LSD

24th June 2007, 07:13

If we try to "out-censor" the capitalists, we will lose and what's worse we'll come across as petty and authoritarian. In an environment where 90% of the population already associates communism with the catastrophe of the Soviet Union, nothing could be tactically stupider.

If we're going to trust the proletariat, we need to stop treating it like it needs to be protected from "bad" ideas. The bourgeoisie censors because it knows that, given all the options, the working class isn't going to chose exploitation.

But our ideas don't need that kind of institutional packaging; we aren't trying to fool people or socialize them to apathy, we're trying to liberate them.

So getting all the ideas out there, even the "bad" ones, is in our interest.

We want a full and open discussion, we want a fully informed working class. 'Cause that's the only way that we win. A radicallized class-conscious proletariat can only develop in an environment of knowledge.

Trying to "no platform" our "enemies" only hurts our cause in the end because it helps keeps the working class ignorant and servile by perpetuating the notion that it must be "protected from itself".

There's nothing wrong with class-based economic actions like striking or work stopping. But there's a vast difference between leveraging economic power for better conditions and using positional authority to pursue a personal agenda.

And in the end, the capitalists are simply better at this and if we get into a war of suppression with them, they will win.

Our strength is that we are espousing a theory of emancipation against oppression. We need to capitalize on that strength and not be afraid of debate, any debate.

People shouldn't be allowed to get away with even little racist jokes, they should be openly shunned by society even to the point that store owners wouldn't serve them.

So you support pharmacists who refuse to dispense the morning-after pill? Or justices of the peace who won't officiate at gay weddings? Or cashiers who refuse to serve Jews?

This notion that we are all responsible only to ourselves is libertarian bullshit and it has absolutely no relation to the real world.

People have the right to chart their own lives in a general sense, but if you're performing a service to the community, you are obligated to do so impartially. If you're a doctor, you can't treat only some of the people some of the time. If you did, you'd probably go to jail.

People don't exist in a vacuum; they are a part of a society and they have duties to that society. Because when someone becomes a doctor or a phamacist or a cashier or a letter carrier, it means that someone else doesn't.

Freedom isn't about statutes and grand ideas, it's about real people on the ground. It's about writters and editors and printers and engineers. It's about holding the value of that freedom above any personal beliefs, no matter how strongly felt.

And when there's flexibility, great. When you can trade shifts or swap bags and can avoid the stuff that really bothers you, that's fantastic. But when you can't. you can't. You still don't get to fuck with other people's lives or, worse, call in the government to repress the stuff that pisses you off.

There was a decent antifa poster that ecouraged postal workers to refuse to distribute racist material.

Something which is a terrible idea (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59067).

Dress it up in all the class language you can find, it's still paternalistic politics and the infantalizing of the working class.

We either trust them to emancipate themselves and set up a postcapitalist society or we think they're too stupid to read some whackjob's pamphlet without swallowing it whole.

Have you heard the "arguments" for racism? Have most people on this board?

It's not the arguments that are keeping racism alive, it's a culture of ignorance. Most racists don't even know why they hate black people, just like most homophobes don't really know why they hate gay ones.

Exposing them to the racist or homophobic litterature won't make them "more" hateful and it certainly won't turn progressive thinkers into homophobes and racists.

Besides, where do you draw the line on this one? Lots of things have the potential to "increase the effect" of "reaction". The mail's actually one of the lesser influences.

So should we start censoring the internet as well? How about telephone conversations? Should operators shut down any call that seems to be heading in a "reactionary" direction?

You are proposing that letter carriers -- and presumably other types of communications workers too -- should start actively suppressing "reactionary" materials. Well, as I see it, the only way that they can determine whether the letter they carry is "reactionary" or not is by reading it. I guess if you trust your mailman enough to censor your mail, you trust him enough to puruse it too.

For my part, though, I don't.

I don't know what his views or his interests are and I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my right to privacy out of a hope that he and others like him are correct in their analysis of what constitutes "reaction".

I cherish my right to read "filth" if I chose and I will not give it up to you or anyone else without a fight.

Because like it or not, the unavoidable historical lesson is that even if your aim is to only suppress the "bad", you inevitably end up suppressing far far more than that.

And I don't want another NKVD ...or Mutaween.

RedArmyFaction

24th June 2007, 16:20

great idea comrade !!

Janus

25th June 2007, 20:21

they should be openly shunned by society even to the point that store owners wouldn't serve them
And we've seen in the past how store owners have abused their ability to reserve the right to deny service to people. It's one thing to actively confront racism (and I admire that aspect of this project) but actually attempting to get people to prevent certain types of people from entering their stores/businesses,etc. is not only impractical but also somewhat misguided.

Dimentio

25th June 2007, 22:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:59 am
Well I thought it would be a good idea to print up a bunch of signs that say "No racists Allowed" on regular paper and go door to door to stores and restaurants and ask it they would be willing to put up one of the signs in their window. I think it would help to put pressure on society by confronting people with the day to day reality of the existence of racism, or just by making people stop and think for a second about it. Racism needs to be confronted in a more active and direct way in society and people's lives, and the fact that it is wrong needs to be reinforced. Everywhere. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with even little racist jokes, they should be openly shunned by society even to the point that store owners wouldn't serve them. Hence the idea for the sign.
Where do you live?

In Sweden, it could work.

In the US, it will probably just provoke people...

Never Give In

8th July 2007, 21:47

It could work, anywhere but the US. At least the area I live in.

Sir_No_Sir

9th July 2007, 02:07

It's not the racists we fight, its the racism.

Never Give In

9th July 2007, 05:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:07 pm
It's not the racists we fight, its the racism.
To dismantle Racism it must have no believers, or at least few believers. There's no boss of Racism that you can just kick in the shin and expect the whole Racist community to fall apart. You must destroy it's popularity, and it's population.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th July 2007, 06:11

LSD, how many times will you make the same straw-man arguments against the no platform policy communists have held in regards to fascists?

Again: not allowing a platform for these scum bags isn't about "free speech" (which doesn't, and won't exist anyway), but rather about protecting ourselves (as workers, oppressed nationalities, etc.) from forces that seek our enslavement and/or physical elimination.

Libber

9th July 2007, 15:28

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 01:11 am
LSD, how many times will you make the same straw-man arguments against the no platform policy communists have held in regards to fascists?

Again: not allowing a platform for these scum bags isn't about "free speech" (which doesn't, and won't exist anyway), but rather about protecting ourselves (as workers, oppressed nationalities, etc.) from forces that seek our enslavement and/or physical elimination.
I don't see LSD's argument as invalid. To me it looks exactly right.

One of the main reasons marxism/leninism doesn't do well is precisely because working people aren't stupid. It doesn't take them long to realise that vanguards and cadres, regardless of what anyone claims, are just another ruling class. And one, moreover, that sneers at the people.

One of the stupidest things that campus commies do is to shout down rightwing speakers. Most people don't go for the "some are more equal than others" line, at least not after they sober up. If anyone should have the right to speak, everyone should have the right to speak. It's precisely because people deeply, intuitively believe in concepts such as fairness and equality that the ruling class must generate non-stop propaganda selling the idea that down is up and injustice is justice.

Governments frequently abuse the law by denying people, based on theories about ideology, the right to use public services such as the post office. Guess whose ideology is usually the one being suppressed.

It is a BAD IDEA to suppress the civil rights of others, no matter who those others are or what theory you concoct. Because every damned time, the same excuses will later be used against us.

EwokUtopia

9th July 2007, 16:45

We have something like this in my town. There was a hate crime incident a few years back at a really cool pizza shop and now all the stores downtown have signs that say "Commited to a Hate-Free Zone"

listener

9th July 2007, 17:25

Well I thought it would be a good idea to print up a bunch of signs that say "No racists Allowed" on regular paper and go door to door to stores and restaurants and ask it they would be willing to put up one of the signs in their window.

I think its wrong on many levels. To create a "new class" people can look down is nothing else than still supremacy.
To prohibit blatant racism doesn't change people's minds and there are alot of people who think that they are not racist but in reality they are racist.
White people have to understand that racist and white supremacists are people of one of us and that alienating them will make problems worse

bcbm

9th July 2007, 18:05

It is a BAD IDEA to suppress the civil rights of others, no matter who those others are or what theory you concoct.

This has fuck-all to do with civil rights. Its a question of self and communal defense. Fascists and racists allowed the ability to organize are dangerous to me, my family, my friends and a whole lot of other people. Why would I let them come to my community and organize without any interference? They are our class enemies, period, and they deserve nothing but boots in the face. Fuck this liberal bullshit the "left" has gotten caught up in.

Because every damned time, the same excuses will later be used against us.

Oh please, like if we respect "civil liberties," then ours will likewise be respected by our class enemies? Give me a break.

---

To create a "new class" people can look down is nothing else than still supremacy.

Uh... why in the hell is it a problem to look down on racists? I don't want bigots to feel welcome, or like they are part of my community.

White people have to understand that racist and white supremacists are people of one of us and that alienating them will make problems worse

The only thing that makes racists worse is to ignore them under some hippie-liberal nonsense.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

9th July 2007, 20:04

This has fuck-all to do with civil rights. Its a question of self and communal defense. Fascists and racists allowed the ability to organize are dangerous to me, my family, my friends and a whole lot of other people. Why would I let them come to my community and organize without any interference? They are our class enemies, period, and they deserve nothing but boots in the face. Fuck this liberal bullshit the "left" has gotten caught up in.
Why are they so dangerous? Are you willing to patronise the very people who will be the only hope the world has, the working class, by assuming that they can be won over to the side of some nostalgic hobby fascists through a few unpalatable arguements? And then acting on that assumption by supressing opposing ideas? This isn't so much about civil liberties as it is about making blind, obedient servants out of the people instead of free-thinking individuals. The more the fascists rant and rave and yell about race and eugenics, the more people will have reason to ioppose the idea.

listener

9th July 2007, 20:28

Uh... why in the hell is it a problem to look down on racists? I don't want bigots to feel welcome, or like they are part of my community.

There are many bigots on earth. Let's kill them and we all will be happy. Nonsense.
But people are always willing to find other people they can label. To feel better then them. To feel to have more rights then them. We have to mature and we have finally to learn that hating doesn't stop hate and degradation of others doesn't help to develop a human spirit

The only thing that makes racists worse is to ignore them under some hippie-liberal nonsense.

It is not about ignoring racists. Again, the only thing what happend due to PC-language was, that racism changed from blatant to hidden. Those 'invisible racists' are those who keep the system of systemic white supremacy alive.
White supremacists are only the most visible ones. But not the only ones.
The average white will agree: Racism is bad. Because for the average white person racism and racists are only the blatant ones.

A-S M.

9th July 2007, 20:33

to all the people who say it limits the freedom of speech and shit of racists, what about the freedom and rights of the people who want to ban them from their shops and who don't want to come in contact with racist people? if someone deserves his/her rights it's those people in my opnion

listener

9th July 2007, 20:44

what about the freedom and rights of the people who want to ban them from their shops and who don't want to come in contact with racist people? if someone deserves his/her rights it's those people in my opnion

how do you detect a racist? Do they have a sign somewhere?

A-S M.

9th July 2007, 20:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:44 pm

what about the freedom and rights of the people who want to ban them from their shops and who don't want to come in contact with racist people? if someone deserves his/her rights it's those people in my opnion

how do you detect a racist? Do they have a sign somewhere?
nope no sign but when talking to people and they say "i hate niggers" you probably talking to a racist, got it?

you can't recognize them by the looks but if you know someone is a racist you can chose not to hang around them etc...
it's really not that hard :P

bcbm

9th July 2007, 20:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:28 pm
There are many bigots on earth. Let's kill them and we all will be happy. Nonsense.
Yeah, banning them from shops is the same as killing them, spot on. But you're right, it would be better if we just let them do what they want and not actively oppose them or their attempts to organize, because it would be, you know, really, really mean if we labeled a group of people and wanted others to look down on them, especially if that group were violent thugs who want to commit genocide against billions of people, for starters. :rolleyes:

But people are always willing to find other people they can label. To feel better then them. To feel to have more rights then them. We have to mature and we have finally to learn that hating doesn't stop hate and degradation of others doesn't help to develop a human spirit

Yeah, maybe if we all hold hands and play with butterflies and flowers the racists and bigots will stop trying to harm our friends and family and join our little drum circle of love.

Uh, yeah, sure pal. Back here in reality, we're dealing with some of the most violent people you can imagine and they're actively threatening us and people we care about, and I'm not about to tolerate that kind of shit. Yeah, people always label each other- it makes social organization and functioning much easier, get over it. You seem to be approaching this as though we're all on some equal playing field, just different teams, and the conflict between us isn't important or something. Sorry, but that's straight bullshit. Yes, I want to label people. I want to figure out who my class enemies are, and I don't just want to "feel better" or "have more rights( :rolleyes: )" than they do- I want to destroy them, or at least make it impossible for them to continue acting in ways that harm myself and my class. This struggle is a struggle for survival and for freedom. Fascists and other bigots are fundamentally opposed to my class' survival and my class' freedom and thus it is important to make it impossible for them to operate. Period. Their "rights," (nonsense rooted in enlightenment bullshit) are absolutely meaningless.

It is not about ignoring racists. Again, the only thing what happend due to PC-language was, that racism changed from blatant to hidden.

It happened because of PC-language? That's an oversimplification if I ever saw one, but okay. I'll agree that a lot of racism today is more hidden, but that's no reason to go off the offensive on blatant racists. It means we need to increase the struggle against all forms of racism and DESTROY IT.

listener

9th July 2007, 20:51

the problem is: YOU simplify racism by putting your fingers only to those who are blatant racists.
Racism = white supremacy. Think about it

A-S M.

9th July 2007, 20:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:51 pm
the problem is: YOU simplify racism by putting your fingers only to those who are blatant racists.
Racism = white supremacy. Think about it
i know what you are trying to say but if we can make the most easy to spot racists unwanted, it's a good start, racism is something that will never fully disappear, but that doesn't mean we can't try, and if we have to start off small so be it

bcbm

9th July 2007, 20:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:51 pm
the problem is: YOU simplify racism by putting your fingers only to those who are blatant racists.
Racism = white supremacy. Think about it
Nobody is saying that the only racists are neo-nazi skinhead fuckers, nor that they are the only ones that need to be challenged. We should try and detect and challenge racism in all areas.

listener

9th July 2007, 21:01

I never said, that you should welcome supremacists or to ignore the problem. But we have to find more effective ways to combat their hate than knocking them down.

here one link for all who are interested:
http://whgbetc.com/mind/culture-white-sup.html

and an article
White People's Burden

By Robert Jensen, AlterNet. Posted August 31, 2005.

It's time for white Americans to fully acknowledge that in the racial arena, they are the problem.
Editor's Note: This essay is excerpted from The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege, forthcoming from City Lights, September 2005.

The United States is a white country. By that I don't just mean that the majority of its citizens are white, though they are (for now but not forever). What makes the United States white is not the fact that most Americans are white but the assumption -- especially by people with power -- that American equals white. Those people don't say it outright. It comes out in subtle ways. Or, sometimes, in ways not so subtle.

Here's an example: I'm in line at a store, unavoidably eavesdropping on two white men in front of me, as one tells the other about a construction job he was on. He says: "There was this guy and three Mexicans standing next to the truck." From other things he said, it was clear that "this guy" was Anglo, white, American. It also was clear from the conversation that this man had not spoken to the "three Mexicans" and had no way of knowing whether they were Mexicans or U.S. citizens of Mexican heritage.

It didn't matter. The "guy" was the default setting for American: Anglo, white. The "three Mexicans" were not Anglo, not white, and therefore not American. It wasn't "four guys standing by a truck." It was "a guy and three Mexicans." The race and/or ethnicity of the four men were irrelevant to the story he was telling. But the storyteller had to mark it. It was important that "the guy" not be confused with "the three Mexicans."

Here's another example, from the Rose Garden. At a 2004 news conference outside the White House, President George W. Bush explained that he believed democracy would come to Iraq over time:

"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern."

It appears the president intended the phrase "people whose skin color may not be the same as ours" to mean people who are not from the United States. That skin color he refers to that is "ours," he makes it clear, is white. Those people not from the United States are "a different color than white." So, white is the skin color of the United States. That means those whose skin is not white but are citizens of the United States are ...? What are they? Are they members in good standing in the nation, even if "their skin color may not be the same as ours"?
This is not simply making fun of a president who sometimes mangles the English language. This time he didn't misspeak, and there's nothing funny about it. He did seem to get confused when he moved from talking about skin color to religion (does he think there are no white Muslims?), but it seems clear that he intended to say that brown people -- Iraqis, Arabs, Muslims, people from the Middle East, whatever the category in his mind -- can govern themselves, even though they don't look like us. And "us" is clearly white. In making this magnanimous proclamation of faith in the capacities of people in other parts of the world, in proclaiming his belief in their ability to govern themselves, he made one thing clear: The United States is white. Or, more specifically, being a real "American" is being white. So, what do we do with citizens of the United States who aren't white?
That's the question for which this country has never quite found an answer: What do white "Americans" do with those who share the country but aren't white? What do we do with peoples we once tried to exterminate? People we once enslaved? People we imported for labor and used like animals to build railroads? People we still systematically exploit as low-wage labor? All those people -- indigenous, African, Asian, Latino -- can obtain the legal rights of citizenship. That's a significant political achievement in some respects, and that popular movements that forced the powerful to give people those rights give us the most inspiring stories in U.S. history.
The degree to which many white people in one generation dramatically shifted their worldview to see people they once considered to be subhuman as political equals is not trivial, no matter how deep the problems of white supremacy we still live with.In many comparable societies, problems of racism are as ugly, if not uglier, than in the United States. If you doubt that, ask a Turk what it is like to live in Germany, an Algerian what it's like to live in France, a black person what it's like to live in Japan. We can acknowledge the gains made in the United States -- always understanding those gains came because non-white people, with some white allies, forced society to change -- while still acknowledging the severity of the problem that remains.
But it doesn't answer the question: What do white "Americans" do with those who share the country but aren't white?
We can pretend that we have reached "the end of racism" and continue to ignore the question. But that's just plain stupid. We can acknowledge that racism still exists and celebrate diversity, but avoid the political, economic, and social consequences of white supremacy. But, frankly, that's just as stupid. The fact is that most of the white population of the United States has never really known what to do with those who aren't white. Let me suggest a different approach.
Let's go back to the question that W.E.B. Du Bois said he knew was on the minds of white people. In the opening of his 1903 classic, The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois wrote that the real question whites wanted to ask him, but were afraid to, was: "How does it feel to be a problem?" Du Bois was identifying a burden that blacks carried -- being seen by the dominant society not as people but as a problem people, as a people who posed a problem for the rest of society. Du Bois was right to identify "the color line" as the problem of the 20th century. Now, in the 21st century, it is time for whites to self-consciously reverse the direction of that question at heart of color. It's time for white people to fully acknowledge that in the racial arena, we are the problem. We have to ask ourselves: How does it feel to be the problem?
The simple answer: Not very good.
That is the new White People's Burden, to understand that we are the problem, come to terms with what that really means, and act based on that understanding. Our burden is to do something that doesn't seem to come natural to people in positions of unearned power and privilege: Look in the mirror honestly and concede that we live in an unjust society and have no right to some of what we have. We should not affirm ourselves. We should negate our whiteness. Strip ourselves of the illusion that we are special because we are white. Steel ourselves so that we can walk in the world fully conscious and try to see what is usually invisible to us white people. We should learn to ask ourselves, "How does it feel to be the problem?"
http://alternet.org/rights/24745/

Libber

9th July 2007, 21:09

This has fuck-all to do with civil rights. Its a question of self and communal defense. Xxxs and yyys allowed the ability to organize are dangerous to me, my family, my friends and a whole lot of other people. Why would I let them come to my community and organize without any interference? They are our enemies, period, and they deserve nothing but boots in the face. Fuck this liberal [civil rights] bullshit.

Yep, that's exactly what the fascists say. I hardly needed to change a word.

Oh please, like if we respect "civil liberties," then ours will likewise be respected by our class enemies? Give me a break.

No, we should respect civil liberties because politically it's the right thing to do.

And it has the knock-on benefit that they can't later use our behavior as a precedent.

Libber

9th July 2007, 21:18

Originally posted by A-S [email protected] 09, 2007 03:33 pm
What about the freedom and rights of the people who want to ban them from their shops and who don't want to come in contact with racist people? if someone deserves his/her rights it's those people in my opnion
Then they should go into some business that doesn't involve serving the public.

Their rights, in their role of shopkeeper, do not and must not include refusing to trade with people.

bcbm

9th July 2007, 21:19

I never said, that you should welcome supremacists or to ignore the problem. But we have to find more effective ways to combat their hate than knocking them down.

I think we need to approach the problem of racism with a number of tactics. One of those is certainly "knocking them down," but we must go beyond that as well and attack it systematically.

---

Yep, that's exactly what the fascists say. I hardly needed to change a word.

What a brilliant non-response. Using similar language (as most political groups do- gasp!) does not make the ideas equal. Of course the fascists will say similar things about leftist groups- its true. We are a threat to them, and there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make them less of a threat to us, or mean that we need to temper our response. This isn't about have the "moral high ground" or "civil rights-" its about defending ourselves and those we care about, and destroying this rotting heap of a society for an egalitarian, free society. To do that, we need to oppose fascists. Period.

No, we should respect civil liberties because politically it's the right thing to do.

Why? For one, civil liberties are something given out by governments, not individuals. The government shouldn't deny the fascists the right to speak- I couldn't agree more. But I am certainly going to do everything in my power to shut them the hell up. Its simply self-defense, and that makes more political sense to me than playing friendly with people who want to murder me out of some mystical adherence to pointless morals.

And it has the knock-on benefit that they can't later use our behavior as a precedent.

If you think they need a precedent, you're completely out of touch with reality. In any case, as revolutionary leftists, we're diametrically opposed to this society and its rulers and we are going to come in to open conflict with them and their thugs should we ever gain sufficient ability to do so, and that will be all the "precedent" they need. You can't be opposed to capitalism and the current state and want them to be fair with you. It simply doesn't make sense.

listener

9th July 2007, 21:29

I think we need to approach the problem of racism with a number of tactics. One of those is certainly "knocking them down," but we must go beyond that as well and attack it systematically.

I agree that for example, when there is a rally that others block such rallies. To let supremacists know that there is a voice against them.

The more difficult problem is to educate and organize the average white to come to terms with what racism=white supremacy (as a system) really is.
The next step is to convince them that it is important to fight this system, to undermine this system.

Yes, we can wait for 'the revolution', lol, and this will probably change exactly nothing as long as people don't mature.
All are equal but some are more equal, this is what will come out of any 'revolution' without great masses standing behind it and also without understanding that it is our search for classification and class, which makes it almost impossible to create justice

bcbm

9th July 2007, 21:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:29 pm
The more difficult problem is to educate and organize the average white to come to terms with what racism=white supremacy (as a system) really is.
The next step is to convince them that it is important to fight this system, to undermine this system.
I couldn't agree more. I think that organizing against white supremacy in general though will come as part of larger class organizing and working to build combatant groups. The struggle against capital will hopefully bring other systemic problems to the front and make them easier to crush.

Yes, we can wait for 'the revolution', lol, and this will probably change exactly nothing as long as people don't mature.
All are equal but some are more equal, this is what will come out of any 'revolution' without great masses standing behind it and also without understanding that it is our search for classification and class, which makes it almost impossible to create justice

Pretty much.

Libber

9th July 2007, 21:40

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 04:19 pm
Using similar language (as most political groups do- gasp!) does not make the ideas equal.
Sorry, but it does. You say, to justify your willingness to behave as the fascists do, "but we are noble and pure, and they are vile". But of course they say, and believe, the same thing. And neither of you has the insight to see that you're more alike than you are different.

Behavior different? Beliefs different. Behavior the same? Beliefs the same. The words don't matter--they're just propaganda.

bcbm

9th July 2007, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:40 pm
Sorry, but it does.
What? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Groups with fundamentally different agendas, goals and rhetoric are not "the same" simply because the methods and words they use against each other are similar.

You say, to justify your willingness to behave as the fascists do, "but we are noble and pure, and they are vile". But of course they say, and believe, the same thing.

You're placing it in moralistic terms, something I've never done. I'm approaching the problem logically from a class perspective. That right there differs my approach fundamentally from that of the fascists.

And neither of you has the insight to see that you're more alike than you are different.

More rubbish. One look at the content of our ideas shows them to be fundamentally different and, here's the bit that leads to conflict, fundamentally opposed. The idea that all violence is somehow the same is absurd, as is the idea that two groups fighting, simply because they fight, are the same.

Behavior different? Beliefs different. Behavior the same? Beliefs the same. The words don't matter--they're just propaganda.

That makes no sense at all. You can't divorce actions from the thinking behind them.

Of course, all you've done so far is talk shit. Are you a revolutionary leftist? If so, how do we get from here to there? What do we do about racists and fascists? Etc. :rolleyes:

listener

9th July 2007, 22:07

I think that organizing against white supremacy in general though will come as part of larger class organizing and working to build combatant groups. The struggle against capital will hopefully bring other systemic problems to the front and make them easier to crush.

But how to organize people, this is the problem. To find a common ground from which to start. As long as the average white person even doesn't see/doesn't want to see the systemic racism and discrimination it is difficult to find this common ground.
And the same, as long as we take this mind-set to our own organizations with us and somehow organize our organizations exactly this way (hierarchy, dominance, paternalism, many disagreements) it's somewhat like a single mess/chaos.

bcbm

9th July 2007, 22:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:07 pm
But how to organize people, this is the problem. To find a common ground from which to start. As long as the average white person even doesn't see/doesn't want to see the systemic racism and discrimination it is difficult to find this common ground.
Our common ground is our class background- we're organizing as working class people and I think this will lead to opposition to racism by simple necessity. Of course, some working-class organizations can maintain racist stances, so this isn't by any means a foolproof theory... I agree, it is a major problem we need to face and overcome. For now, its important to challenge racism when we see it. Not just by violence, of course, but by calling it out at the least.

And the same, as long as we take this mind-set to our own organizations with us and somehow organize our organizations exactly this way (hierarchy, dominance, paternalism, many disagreements) it's somewhat like a single mess/chaos.

Its a difficult task to dispose of all the garbage this world has filled us with.

listener

9th July 2007, 22:23

Our common ground is our class background- we're organizing as working class people and I think this will lead to opposition to racism by simple necessity. Of course, some working-class organizations can maintain racist stances, so this isn't by any means a foolproof theory... I agree, it is a major problem we need to face and overcome. For now, its important to challenge racism when we see it. Not just by violence, of course, but by calling it out at the least.

I didn't mean the class as background. There are many working class people and also poor people who hold very racist views. This is how this system works.
The common ground I was talking about is that people have to learn that racism destroys democratic and human values.
When you talk with average whites (working class mostly) about racism, it's for most clear, racism is bad. Because the believe racism is the "abstract" unknown white supremacist. They don't want to identify with them.
When you go deeper and talk about white privilege and white supremacy, it's over. Then the denial etc. starts. And THIS, this denial is a great problem to find a common ground (at least this I am talking about)

Sir_No_Sir

10th July 2007, 00:14

Can we first start off with the common ground that racism is born of a ruling class that attempts to pit whites against blacks against whoever? And that it is totally irrational. Therefore, we should be able to easily disbunk racism. We should be able to (relatively) easily tell people why racism is utter shit. Let the racists and fascists argue, for if the working class is logical at heart, should we not be able to debunk them with logic?

RNK

10th July 2007, 01:46

I think resolving the problem must take two steps:

1 - Education on race, class, and how each affects the other;
2 - Ass-kickings

Sorry, but I don't buy into the "saying we're going to kick their ass is equal to them saying they want to exterminate the jewish race". The fact is, it isn't equal; one is born of a determination to rule over others, while the other is born of self-defense and the defense of those who can not defend themselves. Any attempt to liken the two is, in my opinion, apologist bullshit and has absolutely no place coming out of the mouths (or fingers) of dedicatedly revolutionary people. Unfortunately, if you haven't realized it already, we're going to have to step on the feet of a few people in order to benefit the majority; kicking the shit out of, and in some cases, killing a few dumbass inbreds is inconsequential. I'd rather see a dead Nazi than a dead non-white young girl.

In summation, I will leave with a quote by none other than Mr. Adolf Shitler himself, who so eloquantly said:

"The only way the rise of the German Nazi Party could have been prevented was if its enemies had recognised it for what it was right at the start and had smashed it in its infancy with utmost force"

We must smash this, now, while we're still able.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

10th July 2007, 03:14

We must smash this, now, while we're still able.
All right, I'll pretend to be a Marxist for a minute and suggest that the material conditions of the early 21st century are not the same material conditions and idoelogical conditions as the early to mid 20th. Hitler and Mussolini style fascism cannot rise from below again and it is a detrimental waste of energy to think one is heroically stopping the rise of fascism by beating up fat bald men.

However, those scenarios hypothectically could be instated from above.

bcbm

10th July 2007, 03:53

Originally posted by Juan Sin [email protected] 09, 2007 08:14 pm
All right, I'll pretend to be a Marxist for a minute and suggest that the material conditions of the early 21st century are not the same material conditions and idoelogical conditions as the early to mid 20th.
The conditions that gave rise to fascism are entirely repeatable- they occur when capitalism enters crisis and the bosses need a way to secure their position and destroy revolutionary working class organization.

it is a detrimental waste of energy to think one is heroically stopping the rise of fascism by beating up fat bald men.

Its already been explained (multiple times) that most antifa recognize that those people are generally not capable of establishing any sort of state power right now. That isn't why we fight them. It is because when they are allowed to organize at all, they become dangerous for minorities, leftists and others.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

10th July 2007, 06:48

The conditions that gave rise to fascism are entirely repeatable- they occur when capitalism enters crisis and the bosses need a way to secure their position and destroy revolutionary working class organization.

I know, but the way I see it would be more likely to happen from above, instituted by a conservative government. And even that is less likely than a state instituting numerous welfare programs to placate a millitant populace or halt overproduction. Think about Keynsian economics and their role in preventing capitalist collapse. The ruling class may have gotten wise to the fact that social democracy is a more powerful way of pacifying the people than the stick approach of fascism.

Its already been explained (multiple times) that most antifa recognize that those people are generally not capable of establishing any sort of state power right now. That isn't why we fight them. It is because when they are allowed to organize at all, they become dangerous for minorities, leftists and others.
How many of them actually do so? And how often are they challenged by the people themselves and not outside groups designed to fight them?

fabiansocialist

10th July 2007, 19:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:59 am
Well I thought it would be a good idea to print up a bunch of signs that say "No racists Allowed" on regular paper and go door to door to stores and restaurants and ask it they would be willing to put up one of the signs in their window. I think it would help to put pressure on society by confronting people with the day to day reality of the existence of racism, or just by making people stop and think for a second about it. Racism needs to be confronted in a more active and direct way in society and people's lives, and the fact that it is wrong needs to be reinforced. Everywhere. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with even little racist jokes, they should be openly shunned by society even to the point that store owners wouldn't serve them. Hence the idea for the sign.
What a red herring. The West is based on racism. The US occupation of Iraq is based on racism (though never acknowledged). The European colonial empires were based on racist philosophy. How are you going to eliminate that? By a bunch of posters directed at poor, ignorant whites who don't even matter and support lost causes like the BNP?

bcbm

10th July 2007, 21:09

How many of them actually do so? And how often are they challenged by the people themselves and not outside groups designed to fight them?

When they come out publicly for demos, they're often challenged by large segments of the community they're appearing in. On the streets, its usually antifa, but so what? It needs to be done.

Sir_No_Sir

11th July 2007, 03:41

I thought the BNP was rather large in the UK?

luxemburg89

11th July 2007, 10:36

QUOTE
This has fuck-all to do with civil rights. Its a question of self and communal defense. Xxxs and yyys allowed the ability to organize are dangerous to me, my family, my friends and a whole lot of other people. Why would I let them come to my community and organize without any interference? They are our enemies, period, and they deserve nothing but boots in the face. Fuck this liberal [civil rights] bullshit.

Yep, that's exactly what the fascists say. I hardly needed to change a word.

Utter bollocks listener, you don't seem to have a clue. Fascists want to hurt/maim/kill people due to racial and social prejudice and favour a return to a Feudal system (all bow down to God and the leader). Hitler, for example, instilled the values of the Teutonic Middle Ages into Germany based on the Volk myths and legends. We want to end all segregation, heirarchy and oppression. To do this we have to defeat the oppressors (and don't give me any nonesense like 'fighting an oppressor makes you oppressive yourself' - it doesn't, it makes you a freedom-fighter, and it is the fact that liberals cannot grasp that concept that makes them so useless for progression - well that and Capitalism).
Let me put it to you like this: Hitler comes into your town and starts insulting your friend, then he beats them up, then he strips them and gases them. You would what, respect his opinion and right to do that?? People like that make me sick, the liberals and the conservatives helped Hitler into power. These fascists essentially want the same thing as Hitler, and yet you dare to criticise us for wanting to stop them? What kind of leftist are you?!
If you want to stand by and do nothing fine, enjoy your time in a concentration camp when they come to power. But don't you dare criticise us for wanting to fight this evil.

luxemburg89

11th July 2007, 10:42

I thought the BNP was rather large in the UK?

Big enough to be a pain in the arse, with the potential to be a threat but no it's pretty small - bigger than the communist parties put together though. If we stop them now, which will be pretty easy and there's a load of campaigns going about stopping them, then I don't think they'll be a problem in the future. Although having said that we shouldn't underestimate the extent to which Fascism would appeal to the British, they - and I like to distance myself - can be exceedingly racist (well the middle classes anyway) and nationalist. I have faith in the British working-class who, in my experience, actually embrace the 'immigrant workers' the BNP and other bourgeois nationalists are always saying 'steal our jobs' - well the workers don't seem to mind. Britain has a substantial middle class and that's where the BNP get their support - I still think the BNP will be pretty easy to stop though. The Conservatives (Nationalist racists in liberal clothing) will be the major problem.

listener

11th July 2007, 14:19

Utter bollocks listener, you don't seem to have a clue.

Luxemburg I don't know to what you are referring, this what you quoted wasn't something I said.

I also didn't say to do nothing, I didn't say to let white supremacists rally like they please. But just knocking them down will change nothing

Libber

11th July 2007, 14:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:36 am

What kind of leftist are you?!

don't you dare criticise us for wanting to fight this evil.

What kind of leftist am I? I'm the kind who actually respects the proletariat, because I'm one of them, born and raised.

I'm not the kind that created the soviet state, the gulags, the ChK/NKVD/MVD/KGB, and Lubyanka. I'm not the kind that talks about how the workers have to be led by a vanguard cadre because they're too ignorant to recognise crap when someone dumps a load in front of them.

I'm not the kind who thinks fascist tactics are fine as long as they're being used For The People. I am the kind who's been around long enough to know that it's the fascists who always claim that what they're doing is for the good of the people.

I criticise fascism wherever I find it. And I'm finding it here, in statements like yours.

luxemburg89

11th July 2007, 18:49

Originally posted by Libber+July 11, 2007 01:31 pm--> (Libber @ July 11, 2007 01:31 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 05:36 am

What kind of leftist are you?!

don't you dare criticise us for wanting to fight this evil.

What kind of leftist am I? I'm the kind who actually respects the proletariat, because I'm one of them, born and raised.

I'm not the kind that created the soviet state, the gulags, the ChK/NKVD/MVD/KGB, and Lubyanka. I'm not the kind that talks about how the workers have to be led by a vanguard cadre because they're too ignorant to recognise crap when someone dumps a load in front of them.

I'm not the kind who thinks fascist tactics are fine as long as they're being used For The People. I am the kind who's been around long enough to know that it's the fascists who always claim that what they're doing is for the good of the people.

I criticise fascism wherever I find it. And I'm finding it here, in statements like yours. [/b]
Actually I wasn't talking to you. And I am sick of this 'I'm more working-class than thou' attitude some have on here - it's pathetic. Most of us are working-class.

I'm not the kind that created the soviet state, the gulags, the ChK/NKVD/MVD/KGB, and Lubyanka. I'm not the kind that talks about how the workers have to be led by a vanguard cadre because they're too ignorant to recognise crap when someone dumps a load in front of them.

I happen to agree with you there - I don't necessarily believe in the vanguard cadre either.

I'm not the kind who thinks fascist tactics are fine as long as they're being used For The People. I am the kind who's been around long enough to know that it's the fascists who always claim that what they're doing is for the good of the people.

This is where we disagree, and where you appear to be mistaken. You are confusing Authoritarianism and Fascism. Fascism believes in Heirarchy etc. as I said and Authoritarianism is well, as its name states. I do not believe in Authoritarianism, just to make that clear. However to accuse me of fascism is utterly rediculous. Wanting to silence fascists (who would attack people based on racial prejudice) - and by silence I mean stop them getting their poisonous beliefs across not kill them - is not fascism itself. I believe fascists should not get the right to air their beliefs - because of the damage it will do. Basically it boils down to this: You either let fascists terrorise those they believe to be inferior by letting them speak and act, or you don't. By not letting them act you are not being fascist you are preventing fascism. The Nuremburg Trials for example, do you believe it was an act of fascism to imprison kill and ban the nazis - who, must i remind you, killed 10million in concentration camps. The second you let fascists get their views across is the second you allow fascism a small success.

Shooting someone is not necessarily a Fascist action - are you against the communist partisans that hanged and shot Mussolini? Not allowing someone to get their racist views across is not fascism, it's common sense and its safety. Why should we let these bastards offend every person they consider 'degenerate'? Fascists, those who wish to restrict freedom themselves, are here being defended because they have a lack of freedom? I'm sure this is not your intent. I do see your point, but I can honestly say to call me fascist is rediculous. In fact I'm a pacifist by nature, I just understand the regretful need for violence sometimes - though I wish it wasn't necessary.

Libber

11th July 2007, 20:56

Actually I wasn't talking to you.

If you didn't quote the wrong person, then yes, you were talking to me. You thought you were talking to Listener, but as she pointed out, she didn't write what you quoted. I did.

And I am sick of this 'I'm more working-class than thou' attitude some have on here - it's pathetic. Most of us are working-class.

Better not ask "what kind of leftist are you" then. Because if you ask it of me, I'll tell you.

Wanting to silence fascists (who would attack people based on racial prejudice) - and by silence I mean stop them getting their poisonous beliefs across not kill them - is not fascism itself. I believe fascists should not get the right to air their beliefs - because of the damage it will do.

Ask yourself this: do fascists try to shut down other people? The historical record gives a clear answer, over and over again: yes, they do. It's a defining characteristic of fascists. So unless you want to try the "some are more equal than others" defence ("it's okay when WE do it") then yes, it's fascist behavior.

Would it be fascist if we forced them to wear big swastikas pinned to their clothing so people could easily recognise them? How about making it a law that they have to add "Adolf" or "Adolfina" to their names so that when they fill up an employment application or government form people know what they're dealing with? What about locking them up in gulag "corrective labor" camps, maybe with some nice wrought-iron work over the gates? It could say something like "robota proizvodit svobodu" - "labor produces liberty". And since you see them as so obviously dangerous and harmful, then why not just solve the problem permanently and be done? Round them all up, a quick trip to the showers, and then they could each make a real contribution to a racism-free society by powering a generator for a few seconds. Would that be fascist?

Where do YOU draw the line, and why?

Libber

11th July 2007, 21:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:49 pm
The Nuremburg Trials for example, do you believe it was an act of fascism to imprison kill and ban the nazis - who, must i remind you, killed 10million in concentration camps.
Judging by what you wrote, you should really read up on the Nürnberg trials!

As Chomsky points out, the definition of "war crime" there was simply "an awful act that the Allies didn't do too". Anyone who could point out that the Allies did whatever-it-was too, got off the hook.

Something Chomsky didn't point out, though (I don't believe) was that "aggressive war" was not defined as a world-crime when the Nazis started up. It was an accepted way to gain territory or some other advantage until the Allies decided to execute the Nazi leadership, at which point it was declared to be a crime.

Of course, there have been a number of aggressive wars since then, not least the one now dragging on in Iraq. Do you think the world will get together and demand that the Bushes and Clinton stand trial? Fat chance. There's also the aggressive, genocidal war and Apartheid-like occupation waged against the Palestinian Arabs by European Jews with the aid of the US and UK. Do you think anyone will ever be brought to book for that?

You might have noticed when Pinochet was in the jug in Britain how everyone --including Clinton, Madeleine Albright (a Czech of Jewish background who certainly would have gone to the camps had her wealthy family not fled to London in '39) leaped to his defence. And of course Kissinger has never stood trial, and likely will die before he can be brought to book.

Ever hear of "the Laconia incident"? It's worthwhile reading about. The German sub service considered it part of military chivalry to rescue as many survivors as possible after they torpedoed a ship. They would fish people out of the water, treat their injuries, see that they had provisions in their lifeboats, and sometimes tow them nearer shore to improve their chances. So when in 1942, off the coast of Africa, a sub commander named Werner Hartenstein surfaced after sinking what he thought was a troopship only to find the water filled with POWs and other non-combatants, he immediately radioed for help and started scrambling like mad to rescue people. Joined by 2 more U-boats and an Italian sub, they managed to rescue over 1000 people. They then spread Red Cross flags over their deck guns and proceded toward shore, their decks packed solid with surviors, radioing in the clear that they were on a mercy mission and please would someone send ships to take the survivors to shore under a flag of truce. A USAAF bomber pilot picked up the transmission, overflew the flotilla verifying the situation, and radioed for instructions. The duty officer, one Capt. Robt C Richardson III (probably not a prole) ordered the pilot to attack and sink the subs!

The pilot did follow orders by attacking, but possibly only half-heartedly because all 4 subs escaped, although they had to cut loose the lifeboats and many more people drowned before they could be rescued. Capt Richardson III went on to retire as a Brigadier General, never even being reprimanded much less courtmartialed or brought up on war-crimes charges.

But they did try to hang Admiral Doenitz for giving strict orders afterwards that sub commanders henceforth were under no circumstances whatever to try to rescue survivors. He testified that he had to make it a categorical, no-loopholes order because otherwise his commanders would disobey, so strong was their rescue ethic. He only got off being hanged because US Admiral Nimitz testified that the US Navy had never had any other policy than to let survivors die. He was still convicted of war crimes and imprisoned for 10 years at Spandau.

Poor Cmdr Hartenstein and his whole crew were killed when their sub was sunk by a depth charge a few months later.

Göring made a true statement, while waiting to commit suicide: the trials weren't justice, they were "victors' justice".

listener

11th July 2007, 22:05

this is what I meant with 'common ground'. The disagreements and the many problems to get rid of old way thinking, that the winner is always right.
Violence is violence.
A 'new world order' is not only about 'who has the power to become powerful' but to learn from all the mistakes of the past. It is about to mature, as humans. My opinion.
As long as we splitt people into friend and enemy the old ancient classification will work and destroy each serious approach to a fair society. We will always look for somebody to blame, we will always look for ways to feel superior.
We should be wise enough to understand, that white supremacists are 'products' of our society.
And this is the reason that I don't join any organization/group anymore. I am tired of the "we are better", "we are more equal", when in reality there is no big difference. Profiling, trying to silence others with different opinions, yearning for power and sometimes just looking for a reason to bash somebody else. The unwillingness of most people to give up old-ancient class thinking at least within their own groups.
Hitler is dead but his ideology has survived. And we can silence right-wing-extremists, but their ideology won't die.

Libber

11th July 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:05 pm
A 'new world order' is not only about 'who has the power to become powerful' but to learn from all the mistakes of the past. It is about to mature, as humans. My opinion.
I agree. What's the point of being lefties and socialists unless we offer, and live, better lives.

luxemburg89

11th July 2007, 22:55

I find myself agreeing with you on your second post - so I'll leave that one as you make some very points (much better ones than me lol!).

QUOTE
Actually I wasn't talking to you.

If you didn't quote the wrong person, then yes, you were talking to me. You thought you were talking to Listener, but as she pointed out, she didn't write what you quoted. I did.

Whoops, sorry. I must have got the posts crossed.

It's a defining characteristic of fascists.

I disagree. It's a defining characteristic of authority. Any Government does it to an extent, even Liberal ones. Openly racist statements should not allowed to be aired, as they will offend, upset and destroy so many innocent people - surely you agree with that? (that is the point I'm really getting at). Fascism is defined by it's heirarchy and prejudice. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism do not have these things. That is, we are prejudice against fascists and capitalists but with good reason, because they are what they are - which I suppose stops it being prejudice lol.

Better not ask "what kind of leftist are you" then. Because if you ask it of me, I'll tell you.

No mate, it seemed to me you were implying you were working-class and I wasn't. i was referring to your ideology not your background. A leftist from a middle-class background means as much a working-class one. We should be defined by who we are not what our background is, as I'm sure you agree.

Would it be fascist if we forced them to wear big swastikas pinned to their clothing so people could easily recognise them?

They are fascists, they seek to oppress we simply prevent them doing this - I hope you understand where I'm coming from at least. I mean you cannot believe they have a right to air racist and heirarchal beliefs?? Regarding the above quote, I would certainly be against that, it would be an insult to holocaust victims.

What about locking them up in gulag "corrective labor" camps, maybe with some nice wrought-iron work over the gates

Well I don't support concentration/labour camps at all.

And since you see them as so obviously dangerous and harmful, then why not just solve the problem permanently and be done? Round them all up, a quick trip to the showers, and then they could each make a real contribution to a racism-free society by powering a generator for a few seconds. Would that be fascist?

Is shooting someone who is about to shoot you murder? That's the point I wanna make. They are a danger to innocent people - but they are not innocent themselves. I would never, ever support gassing someone, and I'd rather not support Capital punishment either. I'd much rather defeat them on an ideological ground. That is argue them into the ground. If, then, the general public want to beat them up et cetera then who am I to stop them - if that is what they want. I'd rather put racists and homophobes and fascists in prison if they refuse to recant their disgusting prejudice. I'd rather have the rehabilitated and educated (not indoctrinated or corrupted though) in prison than have them killed. However to kill these people, in the name of the greater good of innocent people, would not be fascist at all. It would be protecting the liberty of innocent people - by removing those who wish to do them harm - Fascists are not innocent - they wish to corrupt innocence. That is why I understand why people want to kill all fascists - and sometimes I want to kill the BNP - but really I don't think I could kill them in a peacetime situation. War would be a different matter. But like I said by nature I'm a pacifist, by necessity I could probably fight.

I'd like to say you've made some excellent points and this is a good debate. I had you all wrong, and I apologise.

EDIT-

P.S.
As Chomsky points out, the definition of "war crime" there was simply "an awful act that the Allies didn't do too". Anyone who could point out that the Allies did whatever-it-was too, got off the hook.

I can't stand Chomsky lol! His perspective is out of touch now - and I just HATE his writing style. Although I understand he is an excellent History source.

Libber

12th July 2007, 14:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:55 pm
They are fascists, they seek to oppress we simply prevent them doing this - I hope you understand where I'm coming from at least. I mean you cannot believe they have a right to air racist and heirarchal beliefs?? Regarding the above quote, I would certainly be against that, it would be an insult to holocaust victims.

Well I don't support concentration/labour camps at all.

Is shooting someone who is about to shoot you murder? That's the point I wanna make. They are a danger to innocent people - but they are not innocent themselves. I would never, ever support gassing someone, and I'd rather not support Capital punishment either. I'd much rather defeat them on an ideological ground. That is argue them into the ground.
Well, actually, yes, I do believe they should have the right to speak, and that we should, if not defend that right, certainly not assault it.

Recall what Pastor Niemöller said: "First they got rid of the communists. But the communists were bitter enemies of the church, so instead of defending them I thought 'Good riddance!'. Then the Nazis did away in turn with the so-called "incurables", the socialists and trade unionists, and the Jews. And each time, I found a reason to accept it and say nothing. After all, was I my brother's keeper? Finally they began attacking the church, and of course that was impossible to accept so I spoke out at once! But by then it was too late.

Had we of the church spoken out strongly from our pulpits before the Nazis consolidated their power, we could have saved millions of lives. Now we must live with the memory of that, our great failure of conscience." (my translation and paraphrase)

You say you're willing to suppress neo-nazis' speech because they're dangerous but you're not willing to do anything else. Well, why not? Surely if they're really dangerous, more is needed than merely shutting them up. Preventing them from speaking won't prevent them acting, and if they're really dangerous, they're dangerous because of what they do rather than what they say. Racist language never sent anyone up a chimney.

What it looks like is that you're justifying what you want to do anyway, rather than evaluating the reality with an impartial mind and going on from there. You're hardly alone, of course, since many people routinely do that. But it's not to their credit, and, as Listener points out, it always makes the world a little worse.

rouchambeau

12th July 2007, 15:07

Racist language never sent anyone up a chimney.

So all of that "kill the Jews" rhetoric the nazis spouted off had nothing to do with the nazis, well...killing the Jews?

Why anyone has continued to engage you yet is beyond me.

listener

12th July 2007, 15:18

When white supremacists hold a rally I find it important to let them know, that their message is not welcome, with a counter-rally.
but this is somewhat only on the surface. WS's know where they can rally easily and where not.
The problem is - this doesn't change their attitude. And most of all, the picture changes. Many understand that the things they wear tells the entire world their mindset. So they changed - the pro-family, normal dressed nice family.

With disconnecting us whites from them *Othering* they will be able to recruit more members. It is our attitude of 'othering'. There is a reason for irrational hate, it starts quite often with young people, looking for an own identity. The more they are exclosed from society, the more they will be easy 'victims' of right-wing-extremists groups.

We have to learn that people are peole and we have to learn to communicate also with right-wingers, only then there is a chance that they change their attitude.

Libber

12th July 2007, 16:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:07 am

Racist language never sent anyone up a chimney.

So all of that "kill the Jews" rhetoric the nazis spouted off had nothing to do with the nazis, well...killing the Jews?

Why anyone has continued to engage you yet is beyond me.
That's right, it had nothing to do with it. Racist language never killed anyone. It's the Nazis actions that killed. Do you really not know that?

Why do you suppose Mr Justice Brandeis - a Jew - wrote that "the remedy to be applied [for lies, hate speech, etc] is more speech, not enforced silence."

Why do you suppose that Dr King wrote that he preferred the open racism of the south to the hidden racism of the north?

Open your mind!

luxemburg89

12th July 2007, 17:12

First they got rid of the communists. But the communists were bitter enemies of the church, so instead of defending them I thought 'Good riddance!'. Then the Nazis did away in turn with the so-called "incurables", the socialists and trade unionists, and the Jews. And each time, I found a reason to accept it and say nothing. After all, was I my brother's keeper? Finally they began attacking the church, and of course that was impossible to accept so I spoke out at once! But by then it was too late.

Had we of the church spoken out strongly from our pulpits before the Nazis consolidated their power, we could have saved millions of lives. Now we must live with the memory of that, our great failure of conscience." (my translation and paraphrase)

You say you're willing to suppress neo-nazis' speech because they're dangerous but you're not willing to do anything else. Well, why not? Surely if they're really dangerous, more is needed than merely shutting them up. Preventing them from speaking won't prevent them acting, and if they're really dangerous, they're dangerous because of what they do rather than what they say. Racist language never sent anyone up a chimney.

What it looks like is that you're justifying what you want to do anyway, rather than evaluating the reality with an impartial mind and going on from there. You're hardly alone, of course, since many people routinely do that. But it's not to their credit, and, as Listener points out, it always makes the world a little worse.

I understand your point I really do - though I do disagree. Your quote - which is indeed an excellent quote - contains something further than you drew from it. The fact is that the people who 'came' for the various groups listed in the quote are the very people we are trying to silence; and the fact that they did come for those people was that they were allowed to get their views across the bourgeois middle-classes.

Similarly these fascists can only perform the actions (to the scale that the nazis did - though Nazism is slightly different, it's, if possible, worse than true fascism, it's basically fascism bigger brother) - sorry I wandered off...These Nazis can only perform the actions if they are able to influence the minds of people and gather support. If we prevent them gaining support and influence we can prevent their actions. It would be foolish to defend our, and for that matter humanity's, enemies.

listener

12th July 2007, 18:20

These Nazis can only perform the actions if they are able to influence the minds of people and gather support.

exactly. And the difficult problem is: How can 'we' educate the masses to not being influenced by propaganda?

Libber

12th July 2007, 18:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:12 pm
Your quote - which is indeed an excellent quote - contains something further than you drew from it. The fact is that the people who 'came' for the various groups listed in the quote are the very people we are trying to silence; and the fact that they did come for those people was that they were allowed to get their views across the bourgeois middle-classes.

Similarly these fascists can only perform the actions (to the scale that the nazis did - though Nazism is slightly different, it's, if possible, worse than true fascism, it's basically fascism bigger brother) - sorry I wandered off...These Nazis can only perform the actions if they are able to influence the minds of people and gather support. If we prevent them gaining support and influence we can prevent their actions. It would be foolish to defend our, and for that matter humanity's, enemies.
I believe you'll find that the groups targeted by the Nazis had historically been scapegoated for distraction purposes by the ruling class and the churches that served them. The churches (certainly the RC Church, in which I was raised, and the fundy Lutheran sects) taught that Jews were Christ-killers and that queers were sinful and unnatural; no government social support was given the disabled, only a dole, which meant they were kept on the margins of society and out of sight, so that ignorance and superstition made them seem unsightly and perhaps contagious, also parasites; the Gypsies were clannish layabouts and thieves, etc. [edited at Luxemburg89's suggestion]

Then, after WW1 -a "business-empire war" if there ever was one- the Treaty of Versailles was so pointlessly punitive that it collapsed what remained of the German economy. And everyone made hay from that, the Nazis being only one such exploiter. The ruling class weren't going to say "yes, we're responsible for the war that beggared the country and for keeping you jobless and hungry". They never do. As per usual, it was Somebody Else's Fault. And the Nazis supplied a convenient, believable target by pointing to the usual suspects.

At that point, the whole system was rotten, with a thin layer of very sophisticated wealthy exploiters at the top who partied and had no worries, and a base of working people impoverished by the collapsed economy who had no idea where to turn. But the Nazis would have got nowhere if the country hadn't already (a) been highly conservative (Pastor Niemöller only became anti-Nazi, he wasn't in any way a leftist) and willing to obey authority, (b) had their economy flattened, and (\c) had a traditional set of scapegoats available.

It wasn't that the Nazis had no opposition - plenty Reds scuffled with them - it was that they were the only ones offering any sort of change at a time when nearly any change looked better than the status quo.

Libber

12th July 2007, 18:30

I think Listener's question can bear more emphasis: the difficult problem is: How can 'we' educate the masses so that they see the fascists for what they are? We can't do it by shutting down the fascists - that only drives them underground (whence Dr King's point about preferring open racists).

luxemburg89

12th July 2007, 23:22

I believe you'll find, if you examine history more closely, that the groups targeted by the Nazis had historically been scapegoated for distraction purposes by the ruling class and the churches that served them: Jews were Christ-killers, and the ones in the funny clothes (the Chasidim) were clannish and sneered at honest Christians; queers were sinful and unnatural; the disabled were unsightly and perhaps contagious, also parasites; the Gypsies were clannish layabouts and thieves.

Just to emphasise, I know what you are saying here. Some, however might misinterpret what you say here. Just to clarify, it might be worth you saying that you are simply stating the opinions of others not your own - that quote may look a bit dodgy if not read accurately. Sorry, I just don't want to see you banned for being a racist because you obviously aren't one.
Thanks.

the difficult problem is: How can 'we' educate the masses

Excellent point. I think we should move onto this as well, what are your thoughts?

rouchambeau

12th July 2007, 23:51

That's right, it had nothing to do with it. Racist language never killed anyone. It's the Nazis actions that killed. Do you really not know that?
lol

Why do you suppose Mr Justice Brandeis - a Jew - wrote that "the remedy to be applied [for lies, hate speech, etc] is more speech, not enforced silence."
LOL

Why do you suppose that Dr King wrote that he preferred the open racism of the south to the hidden racism of the north?
LOL WHAT

Open your mind!
If my mind were as open as yours, my brain would fall out.

listener

13th July 2007, 00:09

Excellent point. I think we should move onto this as well, what are your thoughts?
One thought is, I can only protect my basic rights by protecting the rights of others, even if I disagree with their opinion.
The greatest problem, as it seems, for average white people is their state of denial.
As a German I am often asked: Why did nobody stop Hitler? My answer: Why did nobody stop somebody like Bush? The world was watching and also supporting when he/America declared war on Iraq without any basis. The world was listening when he declared the "war on terror" and now Islam is a synonym for terrorism. The propaganda was 100% effective, the new enemy "invented".
This is how *othering* works. Find a group which can be blamed for all, which is 'good' for shifting away from all the own problems.

But how to educate people, I really don't know at the moment. I try to talk with them, showing them their fears, their contradiction, trying to make them thinking. Any better ideas are welcome;-)

Libber

13th July 2007, 11:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:09 pm
As a German I am often asked: Why did nobody stop Hitler? My answer: Why did nobody stop somebody like Bush? The world was watching and also supporting when he/America declared war on Iraq without any basis. The world was listening when he declared the "war on terror" and now Islam is a synonym for terrorism. The propaganda was 100% effective, the new enemy "invented".

In the US, I've heard a number of people comment that they've completely stopped blaming the German people for Hitler because now they know firsthand how hard it is to derail such a takeover once the underlying system has been corrupted.

I think it's significant that two of the people who were completely clear about their refusal to obey authority in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment were a Dutch-born engineer and a German-born laboratory technician both of whom were post-war immigrants who'd survived the nazis. When asked why she refused to obey, the lab tech thought a bit and said "Perhaps we [Germans] have seen too much pain".

luxemburg89

13th July 2007, 22:45

I think it's significant that two of the people who were completely clear about their refusal to obey authority in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment were a Dutch-born engineer and a German-born laboratory technician both of whom were post-war immigrants who'd survived the nazis. When asked why she refused to obey, the lab tech thought a bit and said "Perhaps we [Germans] have seen too much pain".

Is this related to Milgram's shock/obedience study? The one that disproved the 'German Hypothesis'.

One thought is, I can only protect my basic rights by protecting the rights of others, even if I disagree with their opinion.

I dunno about that mate. If you allow nazis and fascists to get their opinions aired, to the point that they influence people, as a leftist you will have no rights and you will be killed, as will I and every other member of this site. We this site a big meeting hall in Nazi Germany or even 1950s America we're looking at camps, and probably extermination - when all we want to do is create equality. Fascists want a heirarchy, which results in an almost religious following of some lunatic midget (Mosley/Hitler) with a shit moustache, and an enslavement of innocent people - this is very very possible if we let fascists voice their opinions. I do understand your points, I just disagree - on a practical level I suppose.

Libber

14th July 2007, 07:30

Yes, this was his obedience study, the one that revealed how disconnected from reality our perceptions of our autonomy are. Before the experiment, everyone was sure that USAians are much more autonomous than the "weak, easily led" Germans, and that only a psychopathic 1% or 2% would obey to the end. The terrifying reality was that 2 out of 3 obeyed to the end, that it cut across all spectra except class (interestingly, no ruling class people ever seem to have volunteered), and the study has been replicated in Europe and elsewhere with the same results.

Apropos keeping the fascists from gaining power without turning ourselves into fascists in the process, I think our key goal should be to "take their customers away", as it were. Fascists have no magical powers at all. They get people to follow them by offering a (false) solution to what their "customers" experience as very real problems.

The working-class fascists and the ruling class put out broadly the same message. It's that people who are angry should ignore the ones who actually have all the power and money and focus instead on groups who are generally poor and powerless. Go after the people who are maybe getting a free bus pass or food stamps, not the ones getting millions in business-subsidy gravy. Go after the people you can reach, not the ones who are actually causing you harm. Go for the easy catharsis, not the hard slog toward real change.

They make it sound like bashing poor minority groups will do the job, but of course they know better. Their goal is to get power for themselves.

So it seems to me that what we need to do is counter their message. Offer a solution that's obviously better than theirs. Tell people what's really going on, and in a way that they can hear. We hardly ever do that. We usually batter people with marxist jargon that's very abstract and hard to understand, and that quite often (this is my impression) has a distinct odor of self-satisfaction and self-righteousness about it. Or else we sound so much like a soviet poster urging people to be stakhanovsty that it would be self-parody if it weren't so obviously humorless. How many people want to sign up to be humorless pratts? Not many, judging by results. Yet we have reality on our side. So what's the problem?

RNK

14th July 2007, 12:31

I'd just like to point out the fact that this apologetic, counter-productive bullshit is, in many cases, more hurtful than what the Nazis can say themselves; to you nay-sayers who seem to think that confronting racism is unimportant, I urge you to live as a visible minority for a year. Then perhaps you will understand what it is like to be discriminated against, and perhaps you will come to realize the importance of insuring that all minorities are given the right to live in safety and comfort without being harassed in the street (which my family members are), or being the target of some muttered joke or insulting yell.

The point is that we must recognize the growing problem, and defend the rights of the oppressed. Go ahead and educate -- that works for some (hell, the majority of us are here because we were in some way morally educated at some point in our lives). But you aren't going to change a Shitlerite's mind about wanting to destroy all non-whites with an hour or two of honest conversation. Nor do I see that happening; for all you nay-sayers have to nay-say, I sure don't see you doing any nay-saying.

listener

14th July 2007, 12:42

The problem is nonetheless - how?
Why for example did nobody stop Bush and his politics?

listener

14th July 2007, 13:10

and nobody here said confronting racism is unimportant. But you also won't change peoples minds with only fighting right-wing-extremists.
It needs all together and as I mentioned earlier, we need solutions how to really combat racism because up to now nobody really knows an answer.

Libber

14th July 2007, 15:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:31 am
I'd just like to point out the fact that this apologetic, counter-productive bullshit is, in many cases, more hurtful than what the Nazis can say themselves; to you nay-sayers who seem to think that confronting racism is unimportant, I urge you to live as a visible minority for a year. Then perhaps you will understand what it is like to be discriminated against, and perhaps you will come to realize the importance of insuring that all minorities are given the right to live in safety and comfort without being harassed in the street (which my family members are), or being the target of some muttered joke or insulting yell.
I'm going to guess that you're quite young, because it's generally only the young (and the rightwingers, which I don't suppose you are) who are so obliviously self-centered.

I'm visibly a member of a pariah group, and experience discrimination every day because of it. Every interaction with strangers is a chore, making it quite hard to keep in mind that when people behave badly it's usually only because they were raised to be superstitious, ignorant, competitive work units for the ruling class.

And I haven't seen or heard from any of my birth-family for over 45 years, because they were the first ones who let me know that I didn't measure up, that I was Other, as Listener puts it. That's a little extra that with any luck no one in your family will ever have to deal with, no matter how bad it gets in the street.