DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Constitutional republic as the best model so far

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 12:08
Constitutional republic as the best model so far

What is the Anarchist position on Constitutional republics ? In my opinion they are the best political model currently in existence. They have rights covering the most important aspects of society such as freedom of speech, right to a fair trial etc.

I have switched back and forth over the years from being Anarchist influenced to liberalism and constitutionalism after becoming influenced by Christopher Hitchens, Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris. In constitutional republics or western democracies the poor are the wealthiest poor, we have the freedom to dissent, despite all the awful things still happening within them, life is comparatively much better than the rest of the world.

I am aware of some marxist theories regarding this issue, which claims first world workers can only have the standards they do because they benefit from imperialism in the third world, but I am not sure I understand nor agree with this theory. I don't see how I as a minimum wage worker am personally benefitting from western imperialism.

So to sum up here are my questions:

1. Has free trade and democracy lead to the high standards of living in western democracies?
2. Is the standard minimum wage workers can live in the west (relatively extremely comfortable) because of exploitation of the third world
3. Do Anarchists support freedom of speech. I had thought so while I was influenced by anarchist theory but recently advocating free speech under law has had me called a bourgeois moralist, as free speech should not be upheld for anti working class speakers. For example on a anti capitalist forum I know posters called me a fucking liberal for saying everyone should have the right to free speech and free assembly even the KKK, EDL etc and cops deserve fair trials too and arguing some of the police shootings in the U.S were not clear cut injustices.

I have become a lot less interested in studying political theory and have sort of become the annoying idealistic guy who thinks just being nice to everyone will have a big impact no matter what economic system we have. It is probably after becoming jaded with politics in general for number of years.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 6 2015 15:37

Lot going on there. I won't tackle all of it, but offer some ideas.

Standards of living in the West are probably propped up to a certain degree by the fact the working classes in the core industrialized country do benefit from some some very small slice of the spoils of imperialism. But, more than that, any of those social welfare provisions - including the minimum wage - are the results of intense periods of class conflict dating back from at least the 1930s to the 1970s. Without those battles, capital would have had no incentive to share anything but the bare minimum of the social wealth we create. Basically anything we wrest from capital more than what we need to survive is going to come from current and past workplace and social struggles.

Free speech: More than abstract politics ideals, my concern is building working class power. I have no problem confronting and silencing voices and actions that are threat to our class - including fascists, cops, scabs, whatever.

I think there's also a larger critiques of "rights" that could be made - that they rely on some larger governing body - chiefly the state - to enforce and protect rights. And, further, that the "right" to private property is the core right the state exists to defend. Rights aren't neutral and they're largely an expression of the social relations of capital and the role of the state in maintaining them.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 15:46
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Lot going on there. I won't tackle all of it, but offer some ideas.

Standards of living in the West are probably propped up to a certain degree by the fact the working classes in the core industrialized country do benefit from some some very small slice of the spoils of imperialism. But, more than that, any of those social welfare provisions - including the minimum wage - are the results of intense periods of class conflict dating back from at least the 1930s to the 1970s. Without those battles, capital would have had no incentive to share anything but the bare minimum of the social wealth we create. Basically anything we wrest from capital more than what we need to survive is going to come from current and past workplace and social struggles.

Free speech: More than abstract politics ideals, my concern is building working class power. I have no problem confronting and silencing voices and actions that are threat to our class - including fascists, cops, scabs, whatever.

I think there's also a larger critiques of "rights" that could be made - that they rely on some larger governing body - chiefly the state - to enforce and protect rights. And, further, that the "right" to private property is the core right the state exists to defend. Rights aren't neutral and they're largely an expression of the social relations of capital and the role of the state in maintaining them.

So would you say Anarchism is inherently authoritarian? For example what if large segments of the working class don't want it, would silencing working class people who have opions at odds with yours be given no platform, as it were?

One of my main problems with Anarchism and before that marxism was that it essentially seemed to boil down to authoritarian ideas but through the lense of always constant class analysis, which I can't see ever ending a good way, but rather becoming some horrible place where there is no free expression or individual rights.

It also started to feel hypocritical, for example Anarchists outraged at the state silencing dissent and opinions but Anarchists and Communists are happy to say fuck everyone else who disagree with us, fuck the rights of those people, that isn't oppressive.

Maybe I have genuinely just turned into a liberal. I don't know. But for me the ideas of individual rights and freedoms is the cornerstone of a free society.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 15:50

I think any political rhetoric where you are only concerned with the big picture and trampling rights and freedom of choice is inherently going to make people less free not more. If Anarchism isn't compatible with rights isn't hat a problem in itself and an example of its impractical nature? Maybe i am totally misrepresenting your post though.

Get back to me if you can to clarify if possible.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Sep 6 2015 16:21
Benzo89 wrote:
I think any political rhetoric where you are only concerned with the big picture and trampling rights and freedom of choice is inherently going to make people less free not more. If Anarchism isn't compatible with rights isn't hat a problem in itself and an example of its impractical nature? Maybe i am totally misrepresenting your post though.

Get back to me if you can to clarify if possible.

To be honest - if you are confusing liberal demands with class struggle, you need to do a bit more reading on what anarchism is about - it aint about making demands from the state for free speech (though no one is daft enough to prefer living under a free speech crack down).
Fighting as a class to achieve "minor" social concessions as opposed to expecting them in keeping with the liberal understanding of what a modern capitalist nation state expects are two very different social positions. Free speech is worth fighting for - however I'd trade a state crackdown on a militant union because it was a genuine threat to the social and economic situation on the basis that I'd love to see a union like that exist far more than simply live in a world where countless monkeys drivel on unimpeded by any sense of anti-free speech laws.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Sep 6 2015 16:27
Quote:
It also started to feel hypocritical, for example Anarchists outraged at the state silencing dissent and opinions but Anarchists and Communists are happy to say fuck everyone else who disagree with us, fuck the rights of those people, that isn't oppressive.

This is a very old misunderstanding I've seen promoted as argument for a very long time. Sure, you can pretend that when you see anarchists smashing Nazi's heads in that they're are doing it to trample some abstract right but ultimately, the motivation is much more practical; they'll have us dead. Calling it 'oppression' is laughable.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 16:28
plasmatelly wrote:
Benzo89 wrote:
I think any political rhetoric where you are only concerned with the big picture and trampling rights and freedom of choice is inherently going to make people less free not more. If Anarchism isn't compatible with rights isn't hat a problem in itself and an example of its impractical nature? Maybe i am totally misrepresenting your post though.

Get back to me if you can to clarify if possible.

To be honest - if you are confusing liberal demands with class struggle, you need to do a bit more reading on what anarchism is about - it aint about making demands from the state for free speech (though no one is daft enough to prefer living under a free speech crack down).
Fighting as a class to achieve "minor" social concessions as opposed to expecting them in keeping with the liberal understanding of what a modern capitalist nation state expects are two very different social positions. Free speech is worth fighting for - however I'd trade a state crackdown on a militant union because it was a genuine threat to the social and economic situation on the basis that I'd love to see a union like that exist far more than simply live in a world where countless monkeys drivel on unimpeded by any sense of anti-free speech laws.

I think you misunderstand, I was an Anarchist, I understand marxist and anarchist theory, that workers have surplus value extricated from their labour rendering surplus value, Anarchsits want workers to take control of the means of production, abolish the state, class, monetary system etc.

I am not talking about that, I am talking about constitutional republics and whether or not they are the best model in existence currently and exploring the views of Anarchists on universal rights such as freedom of speech, assembly etc for people you deem reactionary.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 16:35
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
It also started to feel hypocritical, for example Anarchists outraged at the state silencing dissent and opinions but Anarchists and Communists are happy to say fuck everyone else who disagree with us, fuck the rights of those people, that isn't oppressive.

This is a very old misunderstanding I've seen promoted as argument for a very long time. Sure, you can pretend that when you see anarchists smashing Nazi's heads in that they're are doing it to trample some abstract right but ultimately, the motivation is much more practical; they'll have us dead. Calling it 'oppression' is laughable.

But conservatives could use that rhetoric against people like you, would that be oppression? The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. This notion that you can support freedom of speech until it is being expressed by someone you disagree with seems to miss the point entirely.

For example I find conservative muslims bigoted, I find large segments of the Muslim population to hold extremely homophobic views. So would me and my gay chums going into conservative Sunni Mosques in Bradford and smashing muslims heads in with bats be equally morally defensible as bashing some EDL bonehead skulls in?

They have the right to free speech. They might argue for me to be thrown off a building under their ideal worldwide implementation of Sharia, but that does not give me the right to use violence against them for using speech. They deserve equality under the law and the same rights as me.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Sep 6 2015 16:39

Benzo89 wrote:

Quote:
I am not talking about that, I am talking about constitutional republics and whether or not they are the best model in existence currently and exploring the views of Anarchists on universal rights such as freedom of speech, assembly etc for people you deem reactionary.

Ok - lets put it this way: anarchists are opposed to constitutional republics because they are not the society they wish to live in.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Sep 6 2015 17:51
Quote:
But conservatives could use that rhetoric against people like you, would that be oppression?

Well, anarchists, who are often found calling to "SMASH CAPITALSIM!!!1!", don't particularly bother worrying about which rhetoric conservatives may use against us. *shrugs

/edit
Its pretty difficult to argue with someone who takes your position on rights; that they are some irrefutable, inherently good thing that resides within us all, like a soul or something. Its about as productive as engaging fundamentalist Christians.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 16:43
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
But conservatives could use that rhetoric against people like you, would that be oppression?

Well, anarchists, who are often found calling to "SMASH CAPITALSIM!!!1!", have long since bothered worrying about which rhetoric conservatives may use against us. *shrugs

That wasn't the point though, the point was that you say freedom of speech is ok until it comes to racists, then they don't deserve it. Conservatives could say the same about you, Leninists could say the same about conservatives. That is why free speech is essential.

Do you support freedom of speech? If not isn't Anarchism inherently authoritarian?

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 16:56
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
But conservatives could use that rhetoric against people like you, would that be oppression?

Well, anarchists, who are often found calling to "SMASH CAPITALSIM!!!1!", have long since bothered worrying about which rhetoric conservatives may use against us. *shrugs

/edit
Its pretty difficult to argue with someone who takes your position on rights; that they are some irrefutable, inherently good thing that resides within us all, like a soul or something. Its about as productive as engaging fundamentalist Christians.

Is a woman's rights to abortion, to wear what she wants, to have equality under the law as much of a non issue? All rights are essential and yes in the modern context I would imagine most nice, regular people would deem rights as something fundamental to their view of society. Look at the countries with the most rights and those where people don't have rights.

Which one do women get to have abortions, dress how they like, vote, work, which ones do minorities get to practise their religion, which ones do non believers not get imprisoned or killed? Seems to me the societies with the most focus on upholding individual rights are the far better, freer most prosperous places to live.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Sep 6 2015 16:59

Benzo89 - define free speech mate. Are we talking about the right to say what you want or the right to say what you want up to a point and who defines that point? And who says so? Asking anarchists to support statute law in relation to free speech surely misses the point that these freedoms can be revoked unless you play ball - are you asking anarchists to support state laws? I'd have hoped any anarchist worth her salt is involved in something collective a million miles away from playing supportive roles in the workings of the state.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 17:06
plasmatelly wrote:
Benzo89 - define free speech mate. Are we talking about the right to say what you want or the right to say what you want up to a point and who defines that point? And who says so? Asking anarchists to support statute law in relation to free speech surely misses the point that these freedoms can be revoked unless you play ball - are you asking anarchists to support state laws? I'd have hoped any anarchist worth her salt is involved in something collective a million miles away from playing supportive roles in the workings of the state.

Sure i would hope Anarchist support the state upholding the rights of the population to freedom of speech. Anarchists support the state apparatus all the time. When a woman is raped Anarchists don't say, what are you going to support the state, its laws and the prison industrial complex by reporting it and having that rapist convicted.

Anarchists support the state because currently it is here and they wish to see rapists and abusers punished and for women to get justice, why wouldn't this extend to supporting the state in upholding universal free speech.

As for where the line is, you make a good point, mirroring mine I think. The general consensus seems to be the line is where you are calling for people to commit violence. For example the KKK can marching America as can the NOI who routinely spew anti jewish hate. However directly calling for immediate violence or support of terrorism is where that line is crossed. This bodes well for minority radical groups like Anarchists who openly advocate violent revolution, as otherwise you would all be in prison or hung. Which I am glad you are not.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 6 2015 17:22

benzo, the entire concept of "rights" is intimately tied to the state. That's because for rights to exists you have to have a "rights holder" (the liberal individual) and the "rights ensurer" (the state) that is supposed to protect the individual against violations of those rights. Such a framework is inherently incompatible with anarchism, especially considering that the state is like Machiavelli's prince who, while pay lip service to his own laws, never have to follow them, indeed must break them at times to hold power. It's within this context that the constitutional republic exists, and there's plenty of evidence that shows that it is that version of the state that is one of the major offenders of human rights violations.

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Sep 6 2015 17:48

How do workers in the U.S. benefit from imperialism? The only way I can think of is that keeping the dollar "strong" means there standard of living is relatively better, but technically speaking, workers here, in high-tech factories, are MORE exploited because the amount of socially necessary labor time to produce the commodities they work on is far LESS (thanks to labor-saving tech). This means almost ALL of the work they do is SURPLUS.

But this is a complex issue, and I'm not saying the position of surplus extraction is impossible (not sure) just that it has to prove itself like any other. Also, it is a classically new-left, post-colonialist influenced theory, that, as Robert Brenner has pointed out, has various, poorly defined parameters for what constitutes capitalism. (See Brenners The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism where he takes on Wallerstein, Gunder Frank and others).

OP, perhaps read a piece on here by David Adams I think, called "Karl Marx and the State". It clears up a lot of mistaken ideas that Marx himself and early marxists were interested in "capturing the bourgeois state" and also goes a long way toward reconciling Marx's conception with something close to anarchism; to wit:

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the total class rule of the proletariat, though form that MUST be democratic in order for proletarians to work out implementation of a platform in varying circumstances. There will no doubt have to be ORGANIZED SOCIAL FORCE used against reactionaries and capitalists. Marx called this a state-, semi-state etc. Anarchists tend to refer to this as a "revolutionary period".

As for the Constitutional republic; it is the negotiated for that has at it's core the protection of property rights. It is negotiated because the working class tends to fight for some democratisation of the means of government (though without revolution, this is a swamp, offering little to workers in terms of emancipation).

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 6 2015 18:27
Quote:
So would you say Anarchism is inherently authoritarian? For example what if large segments of the working class don't want it, would silencing working class people who have opions at odds with yours be given no platform, as it were?

I mean, I never said that working class people with opinions "at odds with" mind should be silenced. Realistically, most working class people are going to have some opinions that are at odds with mine and, shit, so do most other anarchists. What I said was that I "have no problem confronting and silencing voices and actions that are threat to our class".

Most of the time when working class people say things I disagree with - the importance of voting, how great America is - I let that shit go. Sometimes if a friend or family members says something homophobic or casually racist, I challenge them on it or ask them not to say it my presence. But organized, active homophobia or racism, for example, that shit needs to be confronted, no-platformed, and actively opposed. And not just for moral reasons either, but because that sort of shit divides and weakens the working class.

Social relations are about power, not rights. That's the reality of capitalism and that's the reality of the liberal democratic state. Those same institutions love talk about rights precisely because it obscures the relationships of power the underpin society. And that's why that rhetoric needs to be challenged.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 6 2015 18:28

I should also add that I'm always a bit weary when people come with the Islam/Shariah stuff. Man, I'm don't like religion, and I certainly don't like fundamentalist interpretations of it. But I think part of the problem is that you're dealing with extreme example in the abstract - Shariah law, the KKK - when folks here are trying to keep more of a focus on the material interests of the working class.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 18:53
Chilli Sauce wrote:
I should also add that I'm always a bit weary when people come with the Islam/Shariah stuff. Man, I'm don't like religion, and I certainly don't like fundamentalist interpretations of it. But I think part of the problem is that you're dealing with extreme example in the abstract - Shariah law, the KKK - when folks here are trying to keep more of a focus on the material interests of the working class.

But Anarchism is a subjective analysis, as all other political views are. I have a problem with viewing that ideology as worth trampling existing rights and laws that protect members of society.

I think I am genuinely now a full blown liberal.

Can I ask what you think about the possibility of ever having Anarchism, do you see it happening in the next couple hundred years? Do you ever see the majority of working people ever wanting it? I think most working people view liberalism as too left wing for their tastes, let alone Anarchism. I think there has been a concerted shift to right leaning sentiment amongst the Public over the last 5 years. Workmates who never voted or voted labour are now mentioning UKIP etc.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 6 2015 19:09

I mean, I'm guessing from your handle that you're in your mid-20s, is that right? You also seem pretty pessimistic about the state of the world, which is all fair enough. I'm a bit older than you, but you and me both, we've lived our entire lives in a period of profound working class retreat.

That shit makes it really difficult to imagine our ideas for a better world - from the liberal to the radical - are every really going to materialize. One of the things that keeps me going is the belief that in the class struggle action very often precedes consciousness.

I think if we hope that people are going to somehow come around to anarchism or class consciousness or whatever - or that our success as revolutionaries somehow depends on how many people we can win over - we're going to be left basically in a perpetual state of disappointment.

Instead, I try to get involved in a practical way: I try to build on the basic solidarity we all experience with our workmates (regardless of how they vote wink) and when groups of workers do engage in some sort of active, public resistance, I do all that I can to help out.

Those political conversations, that shit can wait until I've done my best to demonstrate what my politics look like in practice. I think the anarchist movement would be better off it followed that model on a larger scale.

radicalgraffiti
Online
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 6 2015 22:59
Benzo89 wrote:
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
But conservatives could use that rhetoric against people like you, would that be oppression?

Well, anarchists, who are often found calling to "SMASH CAPITALSIM!!!1!", have long since bothered worrying about which rhetoric conservatives may use against us. *shrugs

/edit
Its pretty difficult to argue with someone who takes your position on rights; that they are some irrefutable, inherently good thing that resides within us all, like a soul or something. Its about as productive as engaging fundamentalist Christians.

Is a woman's rights to abortion, to wear what she wants, to have equality under the law as much of a non issue? All rights are essential and yes in the modern context I would imagine most nice, regular people would deem rights as something fundamental to their view of society. Look at the countries with the most rights and those where people don't have rights.

Which one do women get to have abortions, dress how they like, vote, work, which ones do minorities get to practise their religion, which ones do non believers not get imprisoned or killed? Seems to me the societies with the most focus on upholding individual rights are the far better, freer most prosperous places to live.

well in Ireland people are not allowed to have abortions, while in china they are.

but really where do think rights come from? do you think the government grants them because they want to do something nice for the people? people fought for them, they went on strike, they rioted, they burned thing, they blow things up, they killed people, that is why we have the rights we do.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 6 2015 23:18
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Benzo89 wrote:
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
But conservatives could use that rhetoric against people like you, would that be oppression?

Well, anarchists, who are often found calling to "SMASH CAPITALSIM!!!1!", have long since bothered worrying about which rhetoric conservatives may use against us. *shrugs

/edit
Its pretty difficult to argue with someone who takes your position on rights; that they are some irrefutable, inherently good thing that resides within us all, like a soul or something. Its about as productive as engaging fundamentalist Christians.

Is a woman's rights to abortion, to wear what she wants, to have equality under the law as much of a non issue? All rights are essential and yes in the modern context I would imagine most nice, regular people would deem rights as something fundamental to their view of society. Look at the countries with the most rights and those where people don't have rights.

Which one do women get to have abortions, dress how they like, vote, work, which ones do minorities get to practise their religion, which ones do non believers not get imprisoned or killed? Seems to me the societies with the most focus on upholding individual rights are the far better, freer most prosperous places to live.

well in Ireland people are not allowed to have abortions, while in china they are.

but really where do think rights come from? do you think the government grants them because they want to do something nice for the people? people fought for them, they went on strike, they rioted, they burned thing, they blow things up, they killed people, that is why we have the rights we do.

I think the masses fought and battled for secularisation and reform, resulting in the rights we have today. Which is great and beats any other system out there currently in existence. As for Ireland, that in a unique situation in the west, policy largely reflects the Irish of all classes and their stance on abortion:

MRBI poll found that 18% believed that abortion should never be permitted, 77% believed that it should be allowed in certain circumstances (this was broken down into: 35% that one should be allowed in the event that the woman's life is threatened; 14% if her health is at risk; 28% that "an abortion should be provided to those who need it") and 5% were undecided. Ireland is far more religious than England for example and their laws reflect that.

However I think we both agree being working class in Ireland is generally lightyears better than being working class or peasantry in China. The reason for this is the economic system, political system is better and the rights people in Ireland have means a far more open and free society.

I am sure you know this though and are not trying to say both are as bad in some moral relativist way.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Sep 6 2015 23:35

Time out

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 7 2015 00:16
Chilli Sauce wrote:
I mean, I'm guessing from your handle that you're in your mid-20s, is that right? You also seem pretty pessimistic about the state of the world, which is all fair enough. I'm a bit older than you, but you and me both, we've lived our entire lives in a period of profound working class retreat.

That shit makes it really difficult to imagine our ideas for a better world - from the liberal to the radical - are every really going to materialize. One of the things that keeps me going is the belief that in the class struggle action very often precedes consciousness.

I think if we hope that people are going to somehow come around to anarchism or class consciousness or whatever - or that our success as revolutionaries somehow depends on how many people we can win over - we're going to be left basically in a perpetual state of disappointment.

Instead, I try to get involved in a practical way: I try to build on the basic solidarity we all experience with our workmates (regardless of how they vote wink) and when groups of workers do engage in some sort of active, public resistance, I do all that I can to help out.

Those political conversations, that shit can wait until I've done my best to demonstrate what my politics look like in practice. I think the anarchist movement would be better off it followed that model on a larger scale.

You seem like a nice person Chilli and I understand I am probably the only person on here that isn't a fully grounded in their ideology, so I don't know whether I am coming off as antagonistic or confrontational but that isn't my intention. I am simply looking to discus things. I feel as though maybe the forum isn't for people wHo are not Anarchists to friendly discuss the subject from an outside perspective. If so I will gladly bow out of the thread.

My questions and lines of argument are simply me going over things I am currently thinking about, not attacks on Anarchists. I identified as a Marxist since high school and my parents drilled into me the political establishment was bullshit, so for me I am kinds going through a phase of discovering and contemplating other ideas and political ideologies.

Republicanism and constitutionalism are ones I have over the last year or so become interested in. When I am arguing these points they are not my concrete thoughts, just me looking to explore them and debate the ideas I am having. In a year I might be back to identifying as an Anarchist or as I identified for most of my twenties as a council communist.

Part of this learning about new political ideas and philosophies as I feel I basically just mindlessly read books on Anarchism and communism, only engaged in political discussion with people who thought like me, I feel like I spoon fed myself with conformation bias and this is my branching out and trying to explore and think for myself.

As it stands I have started to think secular constitutional republics offer something worth exploring, I had also got interested in free market libertarianism before I found it a silly concept and I have gone through the same exploration of other ideologies before deciding I did not support them.

If this thread isn't something the community on here are comfortable, as I said I will happily just read in and post in other threads, so apologies if I am irritating people.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Sep 7 2015 00:28
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
It also started to feel hypocritical, for example Anarchists outraged at the state silencing dissent and opinions but Anarchists and Communists are happy to say fuck everyone else who disagree with us, fuck the rights of those people, that isn't oppressive.

This is a very old misunderstanding I've seen promoted as argument for a very long time. Sure, you can pretend that when you see anarchists smashing Nazi's heads in that they're are doing it to trample some abstract right but ultimately, the motivation is much more practical; they'll have us dead. Calling it 'oppression' is laughable.

I'm all for oppressing the fuck out of Nazis.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Sep 7 2015 00:36

Regarding free speech, this is a right that is held in relation to the government. The 1st amendment to the US constitution states:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about whether Citizen A can or cannot stop Citizen B speaking freely.

Try telling your boss he's a fucking moron and see how far your free speech rights go.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 7 2015 00:40

I don't think you're irritating anyone. Stick around, ask questions.

The advice I might offer is that if you're interested in anarchism, try to get in touch with an organized group. Either of the major UK federations - the Solidarity Federation or the Anarchist Federation will give you a much better idea of the way anarchist politics play out in action.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 7 2015 00:44
bastarx wrote:
Regarding free speech, this is a right that is held in relation to the government. The 1st amendment to the US constitution states:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about whether Citizen A can or cannot stop Citizen B speaking freely.

Try telling your boss he's a fucking moron and see how far your free speech rights go.

Free speech means freedom from government arresting, imprisoning, censoring you. It does not mean freedom to say and do anything without repercussions. You can call me a dick for what I say, or protest etc.

Benzo89's picture
Benzo89
Offline
Joined: 5-09-15
Sep 7 2015 00:47
bastarx wrote:
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
It also started to feel hypocritical, for example Anarchists outraged at the state silencing dissent and opinions but Anarchists and Communists are happy to say fuck everyone else who disagree with us, fuck the rights of those people, that isn't oppressive.

This is a very old misunderstanding I've seen promoted as argument for a very long time. Sure, you can pretend that when you see anarchists smashing Nazi's heads in that they're are doing it to trample some abstract right but ultimately, the motivation is much more practical; they'll have us dead. Calling it 'oppression' is laughable.

I'm all for oppressing the fuck out of Nazis.

As they would be for oppressing you. I don't want to see you suffer for expressing ideas, I am sure you are a nice person, harm being doled out to you for your speech would upset me.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Sep 7 2015 05:32
Benzo89 wrote:
bastarx wrote:
boozemonarchy wrote:
Quote:
It also started to feel hypocritical, for example Anarchists outraged at the state silencing dissent and opinions but Anarchists and Communists are happy to say fuck everyone else who disagree with us, fuck the rights of those people, that isn't oppressive.

This is a very old misunderstanding I've seen promoted as argument for a very long time. Sure, you can pretend that when you see anarchists smashing Nazi's heads in that they're are doing it to trample some abstract right but ultimately, the motivation is much more practical; they'll have us dead. Calling it 'oppression' is laughable.

I'm all for oppressing the fuck out of Nazis.

As they would be for oppressing you. I don't want to see you suffer for expressing ideas, I am sure you are a nice person, harm being doled out to you for your speech would upset me.

Thank you. Nazis would want to oppress me for my communist beliefs whether or not I want to oppress them.

Jamal's picture
Jamal
Offline
Joined: 14-04-15
Sep 7 2015 08:09

Benzo asks us if the constitutional republic is "the best model so far". We say no, he calls us authoritarian. Imagine that.

As if there's nothing at all authoritarian about constitutional republics. No history of violence behind them whatsoever, right? Especially for the common people, right?

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest Benzo isn't anywhere near anarchist, or even "liberal" (maybe if defined in the most conservative, right-wing sense of the word). Benzo sounds more similar to a Commonwealth man from the early 18th century.

He doesn't agree with the dictatorship of the proletariat because he wants Nazis and racist bigots to be free to use their hate speech towards whomever they see fit after the revolution. Let them have their rights, their liberty, their individual freedom he says.

Well, lucky for us, none of Benzo's rampant dilletantism has anything to do with how true reality comes into existence. Because ironically this is the best model so far. Capitalism beats the hell out of fuedalism, you got that one! But nobody has ever asked the proletariat for it's model...the dictorship of the working class...the best model...and it will stay that way if and until the working class wakes up and fulfills it's historical duty.

Benzo mentions working class revolution "which I can't see ever ending a good way".

Well what's a "good way"? Shall we just call up the world leaders and mega-billionaires and invite them over for a nice picnic, and then we politely inform them they no longer wield political power over 95% of Earth's population?

This thread should have ended at posts #15 & #16. There's nothing to talk about beyond that. We are workers, we fight for communism or death, and if that means taking the "bad" route, where that means repressing Nazis, bigots, liberals and constitutional republicans, that's what we'll do.