Results 21 to 40 of 111
I'm being facetious
a thug with highfalutin justifications is still a thug
The real Nazis are the corporate heads and the politicians, and they are way more subtle about it because guess what, they don't call themselves Nazis and they aren't explicit in their plans for domination. I equate the fascists of today, the ones that actually call themselves fascists, with some kind of violent histoircal reenactment society.
No, a thug is someone who just likes violence.
Using violence as a tool for political work is a means of a achieving greater goals. You might even say it's an art. Beating a fascist is a thing of beauty!
Neo-Maoist rants: http://marcelthemaoist.blogspot.com The Commie Geek: http://mistax1337.blogspot.com
I feel like quoting Alexander Berkman at length when he speaks of how to deal with counter-revolutionaries. So I will. I think that as far as debate and thought, it goes a lot further for the working class to be knowledgeable of fascist thought, in order to understand precisely why it is a bad thing. It goes further and makes more of an impact if their ideas can be challenged by presnting vastly better ones and most importantly, put out into the open so the general populace can air their grievances about it.
Armchair babbling is all good until you have to live in an area where fascists live. It's all good until you are a Jewish person, a Black person, or an immigrant new to a community facing racist aggression. Then things change. I would like to see Berkman's response when the fascists agree with what he say's, and say "thanks for supporting our right to free speech" while they break his face.
Neo-Maoist rants: http://marcelthemaoist.blogspot.com The Commie Geek: http://mistax1337.blogspot.com
This.
Being a "thug" and defending yourself and your community from fascists and racists is something that any leftist that is physically capable should feel duty bound to do.
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
Defending from their fists or their words?
Because one is sensible and the other isn't, so much.
Maybe the thing that seems to be most troublesome is that both fascists and some sorts of anti-fascists use as their casus belli that they're purging the world of some kind of incurable filth.
fascists are not people, nazi's are not people, they have given up their title as a human being when they decided that they need to discriminate, murder, rape, belittle and hunt other human beings (among the other things they do to us.) They are an animal, no not even an animal, they are a virus that needs to be exterminated
If you want to condemn Nazis, don't use the same rhetorical conventions.
And you have no problem with that scenario? I suppose in your mind you should not be charged with assault since you were "provoked"
So tell me, if beating up "fascists" is acceptable, what else is? Killing them? How about raping them?
If some Nazi "****" 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's just a "fash" so it'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's social rights are dependent on them toeing the ideological line is anything but free ...and is hardly what I'd call communist!
Unless you can come up with some objective demonstrable harm that doing otherwise would produce, we have an obligation to grant full democratic enfranchisement to every member of society.
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're not overthrowing the bourgoeisie to replace them with a worse oppression! The revolutionary aftermath is a very delicate situation and a little too much overeagerness in "suppression" can derail the entire endeavour.
We don't want another Lenin ...or another Mao. Tha means no "iron discipline", no "ruling party", and no government suppression!
Now, that might mean having to debate capitalists a lot longer than we might like to, but so long as we're on the wining side of history, who gives a damn? Revolution isn't about making revolutionaries happy, it's about emancipating the proletariat.
And censorship is fundamentally incompatible with an emancipated society.
You're talking philosophy when you should be talking politics.
The issue isn't "why should" racists be allowed to speak, it's how would one go about stopping them.
No one is denying that racists are wrong, but the problem with censorship is that by definition it requires a censor; that is, someone empowered to declare what is and what is not "acceptable" speech.
This thread seems to be of the opinion that an ad hoc censoring body somehow wouldn't be oppressive. The reality, however, shown again and again is that "mob censorship" can be just as bad if not worse than institutionalized suppression.
It's also intrinsically unstable.
In the small scale, sure, you can run around beating people up; but the moment it becomes politically significant, the bourgeois state will interfere, if only to maintain law and order.
I would remind you that the single best example of this kind of street fighting as politics was Germany in the 1930s, and we all know how well that turned out...
Whether before, after, or durring a revolution, people must remain free to excersize their opinions. After all, the whole point of working class insurrection is to empower the people, not to subject them to ideological terror.
The communist cause is not the decriminalization of assault! The excuse of "provokation" only goes so far.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
it's amazing how awful your statement sounds when you take out the groups which it's "cool" to hate
Who cares if it is oppressive? These are people that wish to do harm to the people of the world. With their words that you wish to protect they gather more people to their cause. Then when they are big enough they act on their cause.
In LA Saturday the Minutemen had a march and about 500 people came and shut down their march. They shut down their recruiting and they shut down their message. This is what needs to be done to save the people from harm. This is the same group that stands at the border with rifles, shotguns and pistols. There have been situations where groups of immigrants have been ambushed and killed. There have been plans by the KKK to plant pipe bombs in latino areas.
Your free speech idea is all fun and good until their fucking hunting people at the border. They need to be stopped. If they participate in a group that kills people or fuels the flame of individuals that kill people they need to be confronted.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bl...story?track=rss
Ostensibly anyone who gives a damn about human rights. That's supposed to include self-declared leftists like you.
Again, this is not a philisophical question. Censorship isn't wrong because it's imoral or anything as inane as that. No, censorship must be fought for the same reason that capitalism must be fought, because it is intrinsically harmful.
Again I ask the question, do you want a society in which rape is acceptable so long as the perpetrator was sufficiently "provoked" or "justified"? If not, how can you apply a double standard to simple assault?
People's civil rights cannot be subject to the requirement of passing some sort of ideological test, even if that ideology happens to be valid. Our movement is supposed to be predicated on the notion of universal working class liberation, not just the liberation of the workers we happen to agree with.
Minorities have rights not because they're minorities, but because they're people. They have no special claim to superhuman protections. Everyone has the right not to be attacked or assaulted, but what you seem unable to recognize is that that everyone includes the openly "reactionary".
Disagree with them, fight them, show the world how wrong they are. But when you start beating them, you head down an incredibly dangerous road.
One that cannot lead to a progressive future.
You are infantalizing the working class to an astonishing degree.
Have you heard the "arguments" for racism? Have most people on this board? If so, how come we all aren't out there beating up immigrants?
People don't become racists because they're "convinced" by the "logic", they do so, for the most part, because they are either raised that way from childhood or are drawn to the emotion of the "movement".
People join race-groups for the same reason they join churches. It isn't about the "arguments", it's about the feelings, about the community that these kinds of groups engender.
You can't fight that kind of emotion with "no platforming".
Besides, if we try to "out-censor" the "fascists", 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.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
yea heres the fucking difference, those people you put in place of nazi's and fascists dont do those things, maybe GROUPS of those people are mad and want to hurt non-gays and 'white' people, but not every gay and 'black' person does. But every nazi and fascist do want to discriminate and hate other people, THEIR OWN RACE, just because they think some of them are inferior for whatever reason. They are dumb brutes and need to be met with violence.
And its not cool to hate them, its necessary to hate them, they are the enemy
You're right, let's just put everyone who oppresses anyone else in a concentration camp. What does it matter? they're not human beings.
Dehumanizing the opposition is the best way to ruin the lives of our enemies while maintaining a clean conscience!
no, not everyone who opposes someone else, just nazi's and fascists, considering how they are the scum of the earth and fuck concentration camps, kill those muthafuckers on the spot. Are you a nazi/fascist sympathizer?
You sound like you sympathise with their tactics if you call your foes scum of the earth and think that the wrong sort of political opposition should be silenced on the spot with guns.
1. this "you're either with us or against us" bullshit sounds very familiar
2.
If they are going to deny other's their human rights why should fascists get dealt with any differently? I don't care about the moral high road. If they are going to kick the shit out of people because of their color then I think it is ok to make a preventive strike.
Isn't catching a Nazi's boot to the gut harmful also?
That is silly. There is no justification for rape. I also don't want to live in a society where everyone is all hippie love and let the fascists be until they massacre us.
Wait what is the difference between fighting them and beating them up?
And if we shut down their movement they can't appeal to people's emotions. As for the raised from childhood thing well in the US many people are raised from childhood with different degrees of racism. These groups can appeal to the underlying racist stereotypes and falsehoods.
I don't think kicking the shit out of a fascist or racist organizer or group member is justified because their ideas are wrong. I disagree with a lot of people's ideas. I disagree with christians, rednecks, democrats, republicans and even a lot of times authoritarian Communists. I don't think it is justifiable to beat them up.
The thing about the fascists and what not is that they actually harm people here and now. I don't care about their ideas, I care about their actions. The KKK has tied black guys to the back of there truck and pulled them around the city killing them with limbs coming off. The KKK has come with shotguns and rifles and shot a crowd full of people. The minutemen sit at the border with rifles waiting for some Mexican to fuck up or hold something that looks like a gun so they can light them up. I can't let shit like that slide just so I can say "I allow all ideas and if you aren't for all speech you aren't for free speech". Maybe you can and I admire your numbness but if these people wish to harm others then I think it is justified to smack them up.
TheDifferenceEngine, you can't even spell "fascism", so shut the fuck up with your psudo-moralistic, nazi-sympathetic bullshit.
