DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Militant Anti-Fascism, etc

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Feb 17 2009 20:21

I hate this hippy-dipshit ideological relativism crap. Free speech for the enemies of free speech! Freedom for those who would crush it! Give me a break. The reason you don't care about this stuff is that you probably either look like them or live in a place where luckily they are not on your back. In the meanwhile, anarchists in some places have to carry weapons, and even that is not enough.

I'm not saying that antifa tactics are always right or always cool. This is another story. But this free speech argument is just liberal human rights trash. We shouldn't be worried about respecting people who would string us up if they had a chance. There's a whole lot more important shit to get upset about than some fascist fuck's right to espouse totalitarianism.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Feb 17 2009 21:32
Thunk wrote:
Uhh, yeah, didn't say anything about democracy so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

You were going on about how much you like the US constitution. Your entire post was full of liberal democratic arguments like this:

Thunk wrote:
I'm a very strong opponent of so-called "hate speech legislation" that the Europeans have, and I'm plenty happy with the fact that the 1st amendment protects even the dumbest of fucks in the USA. As much as I am not a Constitutionalist I admit I do like that part of it. If fascists want to have parades, let them. I don't see how assuming authority over someone else's mind or speech is at all anti-authoritarian.

Given that you're defending liberal democracy I think my post made sense.

Thunk wrote:
Right but I am not talking about their right to organized crime and violence. I am talking solely about their views. For example, if a capitalist maintains that he has the right to exploit workers, that is fine; as long as he doesn't have the means to do it and an anarchist society prevents him from being able to do so, everything is fine. He can go sit at a bar and whine about how things used to be back in the days of exploitation. Big whoop.

If Antifa is picking fights with street thugs when there is no basis to the idea that the people they are fighting are actively committing acts of violence against innocent people other than the fact that they call themselves fascists or hold the strange view that such violence is okay, then antifa is not on par with a revolutionary group that takes away the rights of the capitalist or of the corporate press. If such is the case, then antifa has basically become a new coercive apparatus.

Do you think this capitalist would lose his property without a "new coercive apparatus" denying him his "right" to it? Or that reactionary papers would be shut down without coercing the owners and "assuming authority over their mind and speech"? I don't. The anarchist/libertarian communist movement should be organised internally on strictly democratic principles, but that doesn't mean respecting the "rights" given by capitalist laws, or respecting free speech for reactionary scum like fascists. Its not about rallying to the defence of liberal society.

I don't understand how the fascists you are talking about can both be "street thugs" and innocent of "committing acts of violence". But its beside the point. Antifa prevent fascists organising. They don't find BNP voters and fuck them up.

Anyways, what do you mean by "organised crime"? In many parts of the world pro-revolutionaries are criminals. I don't think anarchist politics is really about opposing "thugs" or "criminals". Thats irrelevant really. The capitalists that function in semi-illegality should go the same was as the rest of them and be denied the ability to exploit. They should be resisted like any other capitalists.

A question: In Britain local people have battered fascists that have tried to gain a foothold in their area, or marched through it to intimidate them. During the Battle of Lewisham in the 70s local black youth and anti-fascists smashed in a National Front march. Are the local people "authoritarian" for stopping these scumbags marching through their area? A mate of mine worked in a pub where the staff threatened to quit on mass unless the manager barred the nazi skins that used to come in. Is this "authoritarianism"?

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Feb 17 2009 21:35

P.S.- As I've already said, I think we need to defend ourselves, but I have my doubts about lots of anti-fascist stuff. Not because I'm upset about fascist activists being sparked out though.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Feb 17 2009 21:35

Thunk-the problem with your day and a half tenure here is you'll ask a question or make an assertion--sometimes legitimate, sometimes not--then people will address your question or assertion and then you continue on making the same assertion over and over as if no one has actually addressed your original point.

If you're in Madrid, grab some old working class guy and ask him if he had a chance would he have smashed up some fascists in the early '30s.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 17 2009 22:22

Thunk, fascism has from the start been a violent movement that has used street violence as part of it's every day tactics. Antifa in the UK grew from the fact that fascist groups were organising street attacks to go alongside their less openly violent activities. The idea of no platform (that they should not be given a platform for their ideas and activities) is not one I am strictly in agreement with, but it is understandable. In the UK one of the problems with Antifa is that they don't seem to have reacted well to the change in strategy by fascist groups (namely the BNP) and are still trying to use no platform tactics on a group that has largely rid itself of violence (at least as a current tactic).
In other countries organising against fascists is more necessary, some of the more vehement anti-fascists on the boards come from places where meetings (or people just walking the streets) will be attacked by fascists and as such anti-fascism is basically a pre-requisite for organisation.
I still think that anti-fascism can go too far, when it becomes an ideology in itself then it becomes divorced from the politics that inspire it. I am a communist and I know that I can never accept fascist ideologies and that they are in direct opposition to what I believe, but I also recognise that they are just one of the opposing ideologies and they need to be dealt with on a tactical/strategic level.

There has been discussion on here before about rights being bourgeois, I can't find a good one right now, but maybe someone else could put up a link, I'm not great at explaining them.

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Feb 18 2009 00:19
Quote:
Also, still not quite sure why fascists are any different from Obama supporters...

I've never flamed anyone on this forum, but after reading his posts in libcom and this thread I am almost certain he is fash in disguise

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 18 2009 00:40
juozokas wrote:
Quote:
Also, still not quite sure why fascists are any different from Obama supporters...

I've never flamed anyone on this forum, but after reading his posts in libcom and this thread I am almost certain he is fash in disguise

I'd say more likely individualist anarchist debate club member, there have been a fair few red flags so fash is possible. No reason not to have decent responses up here. There was a point on libcom where posters were trying to ignore these kind of posts unless they were in the mood to refute them properly. It didn;t last long but I thought it was effective. The best thing that fash can do is start slanging matches to create an illusion of debate.

juozokas's picture
juozokas
Offline
Joined: 5-11-07
Feb 18 2009 00:50

In my experience this stuff only comes out of fascists' mouths. Only place he could get away with this (and we have to be polite about it) is on the Internet.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 18 2009 02:14
Thunk wrote:
On the other hand, if this group of people then hatches a plan to actually threaten, harass, and intimidate immigrants into leaving, perhaps then it is time to take action.

That is what organised fascism is, Antifa do not target random individuals who hold racist views, they target active fascist organisations.

You've had this explained to you several times now, so I can only assume you're either seriously dim or on the wind up, either way you're not worth bothering with.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 18 2009 02:19
jef costello wrote:
In the UK one of the problems with Antifa is that they don't seem to have reacted well to the change in strategy by fascist groups (namely the BNP) and are still trying to use no platform tactics on a group that has largely rid itself of violence (at least as a current tactic).

I'm not so sure that it's true that the BNP have completely given up on violence and intimidation as a tactic. Recent experience around Liverpool (which has included one national fascist mobilisation, BNP members making arson threats against lefty bookshops and BNP leaflets with local anti-fascists names and addresses on them) indicates that while they may opt for the "respectable" community organisation and electoral stuff while it suits them, they are quite happy to persue their old tactics.

Don't get me wrong, the BNP have failed to make any headway around here, largely due to massive hostility towards them among working class people in the area, but there's more to them than fluffy election campaigns.

Thunk
Offline
Joined: 16-02-09
Feb 18 2009 06:05
Django wrote:
Thunk wrote:
Uhh, yeah, didn't say anything about democracy so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

You were going on about how much you like the US constitution. Your entire post was full of liberal democratic arguments like this:

Thunk wrote:
I'm a very strong opponent of so-called "hate speech legislation" that the Europeans have, and I'm plenty happy with the fact that the 1st amendment protects even the dumbest of fucks in the USA. As much as I am not a Constitutionalist I admit I do like that part of it. If fascists want to have parades, let them. I don't see how assuming authority over someone else's mind or speech is at all anti-authoritarian.

Given that you're defending liberal democracy I think my post made sense.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I said I am not a Constitutionalist. I don't get how believing in absolute free speech has anything to do with liberal democracy. So yeah, no.

Quote:
Thunk wrote:
Right but I am not talking about their right to organized crime and violence. I am talking solely about their views. For example, if a capitalist maintains that he has the right to exploit workers, that is fine; as long as he doesn't have the means to do it and an anarchist society prevents him from being able to do so, everything is fine. He can go sit at a bar and whine about how things used to be back in the days of exploitation. Big whoop.

If Antifa is picking fights with street thugs when there is no basis to the idea that the people they are fighting are actively committing acts of violence against innocent people other than the fact that they call themselves fascists or hold the strange view that such violence is okay, then antifa is not on par with a revolutionary group that takes away the rights of the capitalist or of the corporate press. If such is the case, then antifa has basically become a new coercive apparatus.

Do you think this capitalist would lose his property without a "new coercive apparatus" denying him his "right" to it? Or that reactionary papers would be shut down without coercing the owners and "assuming authority over their mind and speech"? I don't. The anarchist/libertarian communist movement should be organised internally on strictly democratic principles, but that doesn't mean respecting the "rights" given by capitalist laws, or respecting free speech for reactionary scum like fascists. Its not about rallying to the defence of liberal society.

The rights of a capitalist and the rights of free speech are two completely separate matters. The rights of a capitalist are based on exploitation. To say a capitalist has the "right" to exploit someone is like saying I have the "right" to rape, murder, assault, etc. On the other hand, the right to free speech does not involve trampling on someone else's rights. So I would say the "right" to assault a fascist for his views is on par with the right of a capitalist to exploit a worker -- both involve trampling on someone who has committed no aggression against anyone else. So IMO you've got it backwards.

Quote:
I don't understand how the fascists you are talking about can both be "street thugs" and innocent of "committing acts of violence". But its beside the point. Antifa prevent fascists organising. They don't find BNP voters and fuck them up.

Yeah I was asking about this earlier, a few other posters claimed even folks who say "anti-free speech" things should have their rights voided. I think that's bullshit, and it's certainly not the same as preventing fascists from organizing.

Quote:
Anyways, what do you mean by "organised crime"? In many parts of the world pro-revolutionaries are criminals. I don't think anarchist politics is really about opposing "thugs" or "criminals". Thats irrelevant really. The capitalists that function in semi-illegality should go the same was as the rest of them and be denied the ability to exploit. They should be resisted like any other capitalists.

In my view, anyone who tramples on the rights of others IS the problem. Not even for their ideology. If a fascist beats up someone because they are an immigrant, if a capitalist exploits someone to make money, or a rapist feels like getting his power fix by preying on innocent women, all of them are the problem. It really has nothing to do with ideology. So my point is a bottom-up organization that wants to protect society should not just target its political enemies.

Quote:
A question: In Britain local people have battered fascists that have tried to gain a foothold in their area, or marched through it to intimidate them. During the Battle of Lewisham in the 70s local black youth and anti-fascists smashed in a National Front march. Are the local people "authoritarian" for stopping these scumbags marching through their area? A mate of mine worked in a pub where the staff threatened to quit on mass unless the manager barred the nazi skins that used to come in. Is this "authoritarianism"?

Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

As for the workers threatening to quit because they didn't agree with business practices, no I don't see how that is authoritarian, it is their work place and they have the right to a say in how it functions.

Thunk
Offline
Joined: 16-02-09
Feb 18 2009 06:08
madashell wrote:
Thunk wrote:
On the other hand, if this group of people then hatches a plan to actually threaten, harass, and intimidate immigrants into leaving, perhaps then it is time to take action.

That is what organised fascism is, Antifa do not target random individuals who hold racist views, they target active fascist organisations.

You've had this explained to you several times now, so I can only assume you're either seriously dim or on the wind up, either way you're not worth bothering with.

No, some posters tried to say this, others just came back and negated the concept. You realize half the people in this topic are not just talking about messing up organizations?

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Feb 18 2009 06:52
Thunk wrote:
Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

In NI, fascists started by putting up posters and stickers, they were removed. When they tried to go leafleting they were prevented from doing so. When they got themselves a contact point at a private mailbox company, that companys premises were picketed until the owner agreed to close their mailbox. Thunk are you actually suggesting none of these things was the correct thing for the anarchists and socialists involved to do? None of the things Ive just mentioned the fascists doing constituted 'attacking people', but they are a natural precursor to more sinister things, if you cant understand that, Thunk, which you cant seem to, you are a bit naive at best, or as others have suggested, fash in disguise.

Thunk
Offline
Joined: 16-02-09
Feb 18 2009 07:51
notch8 wrote:
Thunk wrote:
Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

In NI, fascists started by putting up posters and stickers, they were removed. When they tried to go leafleting they were prevented from doing so. When they got themselves a contact point at a private mailbox company, that companys premises were picketed until the owner agreed to close their mailbox. Thunk are you actually suggesting none of these things was the correct thing for the anarchists and socialists involved to do? None of the things Ive just mentioned the fascists doing constituted 'attacking people', but they are a natural precursor to more sinister things, if you cant understand that, Thunk, which you cant seem to, you are a bit naive at best, or as others have suggested, fash in disguise.

No. I haven't said that at all. Do you read anything I've said? Why the hell would I oppose those things? The fact that you equate picketing a mailbox or vandalizing posters with attacking people blows my mind. The only thing in there that I would find questionable is "preventing them" from leafeting, which still depends on how they were "prevented". If they were prevented by organizing a peaceful counter demonstration or something, that is different from attacking them. I understand just fine that they are a precursor to more sinister things. Still failing to see how that justifies thought crime.

Wow, so you guys really are serious about calling me a "fash". Wow, that is kind of sad. There were forums I used to go to where instead of using the word "fascist" as a euphemism for "anyone who disagrees with our point of view," they would use words like "Zionist" or something like that, even when people weren't advocating anything that had to with Israel. Looks like I've found the common euphemism at libcom. Just to clarify, fascists do not believe in extending rights to people who are their enemies. I have argued all throughout this post that EVERYONE should be granted free speech. So I think it's pretty obvious that I am not a fascist, and for you people to jump to that conclusion is just sad. It's almost as if you've lost touch with what fascism actually is. My position is pretty consistent with the theory and the ideology, and if you've actually read anything I've said I think you would recognize that.

prec@riat's picture
prec@riat
Offline
Joined: 3-10-07
Feb 18 2009 09:25

Thunk,
So you're buddies with "real-life antifa", you defend antifa "non-violently" confronting them (i.e.-expressing their "free speech rights" and telling fascists to get fucked), you agree that antifa or targets of actual fascist violence have a "right" to self defense... ...what you really seem to hate and the thing you seem to have a problem with is nothing antifa actually physically do, it's when an antifa says "I want to beat up fascists"? Why exactly do you have a bug up your bum about some supposed antifa's "free speech" to express such a view? Why is a fascists "right" to say "I want to beat up reds (queers, blacks, jews, etc.)" seemingly more precious to you?

prec@riat's picture
prec@riat
Offline
Joined: 3-10-07
Feb 18 2009 09:33
Thunk wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Antifa does not act when there is reason to believe fascists are plotting to harm someone; they attack people solely on the basis of their fascist views.

You are wrong here. (As well as elsewhere... heh)
This has been mentioned many times by other posters already. Antifa do act when there is reason to believe fascists are plotting to harm someone. Further ... actively organizing on the basis of fascist views=plotting to harm someone.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 18 2009 10:16
Thunk wrote:
The rights of a capitalist and the rights of free speech are two completely separate matters. The rights of a capitalist are based on exploitation. To say a capitalist has the "right" to exploit someone is like saying I have the "right" to rape, murder, assault, etc. On the other hand, the right to free speech does not involve trampling on someone else's rights. So I would say the "right" to assault a fascist for his views is on par with the right of a capitalist to exploit a worker -- both involve trampling on someone who has committed no aggression against anyone else. So IMO you've got it backwards.

The problem with giving people absolute rights is that they always end up conflicting, especially when they are poorly thought out. Saying things can have an effect. Someone might to the say that they like raping drunk people in alleyways. Should they be allowed to sit in a bar saying this?
My main issue with militant anti-fascism is that communists will tend to not be able to win by force, they win by the strength of their ideas. Fascists can win by uniting with mainstream politicians, communists can't.

Quote:
In my view, anyone who tramples on the rights of others IS the problem. Not even for their ideology. If a fascist beats up someone because they are an immigrant, if a capitalist exploits someone to make money, or a rapist feels like getting his power fix by preying on innocent women, all of them are the problem. It really has nothing to do with ideology. So my point is a bottom-up organization that wants to protect society should not just target its political enemies.

Are you saying that a bottom up organisation should target all of these people and not just fash? In which case few would disagree with you. I'd like it if organisations existed that could change these things.

Quote:
Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

If fascists go into an area for a march because of the people that live there then it is a deliberate act of aggression. The fascists didn't accidentally pick a area with a racially mixed population by accident. They wanted to intimidate local people and the local people refused to be intimidated. In the same way that if I decided to hold a peaceful march in your rec room you might think that my right to free speech was pretty invasive and 'trampling on your rights'.

This idea of 'voiding' rights is another one that is not correct. No one (no one sensible at least) is saying that anyne who has ever said anything racist or fascist should be permanently stripped of their rights. This all or nothing approach is reminiscent of fascism and goes back to the idea you mentioned on the other thread of inferiors. Being a fascist means that someone is not merely wrong but that they are dangerous to working class self-organisation. As such they need to be confronted and prevented from damaging this organisation. In the case of some fascists they won't listen to reason and they won't change their minds and the only way to stop them is physically. This is not saying that they are irredeemably bad (although some maybe) it is saying that sometimes a physical response is the best one.

It's easy to find a group of people who'll attack people when they have the advantage of numbers and or weapons. It's much harder to do this when you have to fight on an equal or disadvantaged footing. One of the reasons why fascists have for the most part abandoned street tactics (or hold marches with a small group of nutcases who are surrounded by police for their own protection) is because they were kicked off the streets.

Thunk
Offline
Joined: 16-02-09
Feb 18 2009 10:47
prec@riat wrote:
Thunk,
So you're buddies with "real-life antifa", you defend antifa "non-violently" confronting them (i.e.-expressing their "free speech rights" and telling fascists to get fucked), you agree that antifa or targets of actual fascist violence have a "right" to self defense... ...what you really seem to hate and the thing you seem to have a problem with is nothing antifa actually physically do, it's when an antifa says "I want to beat up fascists"? Why exactly do you have a bug up your bum about some supposed antifa's "free speech" to express such a view? Why is a fascists "right" to say "I want to beat up reds (queers, blacks, jews, etc.)" seemingly more precious to you?

I don't disagree with antifa's right to free speech, or a fascist's right to free speech, etc. Everyone can say what they want. It is certain actions that I find despicable. If my antifa friends were to go beat up fascist leafleters or disrupt a march I would not approve. If they go find the guy that killed the 16 year old that was murdered on the subway for being an anarchist and kick the shit out of him, I don't mind that at all.

Jef, I have a response if you're willing to give it a shot, I think some of my opinions have been misinterpreted; I have to finish some homework though, I'll get to it later.

Ex-temp
Offline
Joined: 12-01-09
Feb 18 2009 11:25
Thunk wrote:
madashell wrote:
Thunk wrote:
On the other hand, if this group of people then hatches a plan to actually threaten, harass, and intimidate immigrants into leaving, perhaps then it is time to take action.

That is what organised fascism is, Antifa do not target random individuals who hold racist views, they target active fascist organisations.

You've had this explained to you several times now, so I can only assume you're either seriously dim or on the wind up, either way you're not worth bothering with.

No, some posters tried to say this, others just came back and negated the concept. You realize half the people in this topic are not just talking about messing up organizations?

no, thunk, madashell has explained what antifa do. They do not attack random individuals for their thoughts, but active fascist organisations actively trying to build fascism (and expel immigrants, attacked "reds ", ethnic minorities, gays).

Many people have now explained this to you, and all you are doing is repeating your initial statement again and again.

My guess is that you are not dim, or a fascist, but probably quite a naive teenager who finds it difficult to listen to what other people say. You should probably still try, however, especially as the people you are talking to hear actually know what we are talking about, ie many of us have been involved in antifa activities and so know what they consist of - and attacking people solely because of their views, or finding bigots in pubs is absolutely nothing to do with it.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Feb 18 2009 11:34
Quote:
Yeah I'm pretty sure I said I am not a Constitutionalist. I don't get how believing in absolute free speech has anything to do with liberal democracy. So yeah, no

.

Whilst going on about how great the US constitution is. The ideology of absolute free speech and liberal democracy are actually very mixed up in terms of where they come from.

Thunk wrote:
The rights of a capitalist and the rights of free speech are two completely separate matters. The rights of a capitalist are based on exploitation. To say a capitalist has the "right" to exploit someone is like saying I have the "right" to rape, murder, assault, etc. On the other hand, the right to free speech does not involve trampling on someone else's rights. So I would say the "right" to assault a fascist for his views is on par with the right of a capitalist to exploit a worker -- both involve trampling on someone who has committed no aggression against anyone else. So IMO you've got it backwards.

So you don't have a problem with "coercive apparatuses" then?

Who is defending peoples "right" to assualt fascists? You are putting words into peoples mouths. I've been saying that the idea of "rights" is dubious. Capitalism isn't a conspiracy of capitalists, its a social relation between capital and labour. A system of rights is how the state creates a social basis for this system reproducing itself. So its something that I think anarchists should be looking at critically, not rallying to the defence of the democratic society.

Quote:
In my view, anyone who tramples on the rights of others IS the problem. Not even for their ideology. If a fascist beats up someone because they are an immigrant, if a capitalist exploits someone to make money, or a rapist feels like getting his power fix by preying on innocent women, all of them are the problem. It really has nothing to do with ideology. So my point is a bottom-up organization that wants to protect society should not just target its political enemies.

Except if we are going to talk about opposing capitalism it can't be in terms of nasty individual capitalists voiding the essential natural rights of workers. Capitalism is a social relation, sometimes manifested through individual private businesses, sometimes through plcs, sometimes through co-operatives. "Defending society" has nothing to do with opposing it. Capitalist society is something that would go the same way as capitalism. A "bottom-up organisation" that opposes capitalism wouldn't be defending society but antagonistic towards capitalist society, surely?

Anyway, Militant anti-fascist stuff has pretty specific origins - workers defending themselves against attacks by fascists. This isn't "just targeting political enemies".

Quote:
Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

This is mental. White supremacists have a "right" to march through a black area without facing the consequences? Its not surprising people are asking whether you are a liberal or a fascist, as they're the only people who'd make an argument like that. I don't think you are a fascist troll though. Just a liberal.

Quote:
As for the workers threatening to quit because they didn't agree with business practices, no I don't see how that is authoritarian, it is their work place and they have the right to a say in how it functions.

So you think workers have a "right" to have a say in how their workplace is run but local people don't have that "right" in their neighborhoods?

Its not like people are advocating kicking the heads in of individuals who have bigoted and divisive views. Theres plenty of that around, and there are much more effective ways of dealing with it. Taking on political factions whose purpose is to ethnically cleanse society and who always attack the likes of us is a pretty different issue. I have my criticisms of it here, but I can understand why in a country like Russia anarchists have to set up antifas.

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Feb 18 2009 11:33
Thunk wrote:
notch8 wrote:
Thunk wrote:
Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

In NI, fascists started by putting up posters and stickers, they were removed. When they tried to go leafleting they were prevented from doing so. When they got themselves a contact point at a private mailbox company, that companys premises were picketed until the owner agreed to close their mailbox. Thunk are you actually suggesting none of these things was the correct thing for the anarchists and socialists involved to do? None of the things Ive just mentioned the fascists doing constituted 'attacking people', but they are a natural precursor to more sinister things, if you cant understand that, Thunk, which you cant seem to, you are a bit naive at best, or as others have suggested, fash in disguise.

No. I haven't said that at all. Do you read anything I've said? Why the hell would I oppose those things?

Because all of them, unapologetically, denied a fascist group the right to free speech which you so vehemently defend. Free distribution of propaganda in the form of posters / stickers or leaflets, and free communication with groups and individuals (via, I dont know, a mailing address?) come into the 'free speech' category.

If the nazis who killed the 16 year old anarchist were doing leaflets when antifascists found them, would they have to wait until the nazis were done leafleting before administering a kicking, so as not to offend Thunk?. Its lucky we have the Wordwide Arbiter Of How Its Acceptable To Deal With Far Right Groups on here finally to keep us right.

Seriously can Thunk get banned before coming back from his / her homework? If people got bans recently for overt Irish nationalism / republicanism, advocation of free speech for Nazis is worth one?

Thunk
Offline
Joined: 16-02-09
Feb 18 2009 13:20
notch8 wrote:
Thunk wrote:
notch8 wrote:
Thunk wrote:
Which part? Yes I think the local people are "authoritarian" for fucking a peaceful march. It sounds like what the government tried to do to the fascists in Skokie, Ill. I agreed with all the liberals (and before any more of dipshits concludes taht makes me a liberal -- or for that matter, a "fash" -- just please, stop and think before you press "save") that so long as they are not attacking anyone their rights should not be voided. So yeah, I think that's complete bullshit.

In NI, fascists started by putting up posters and stickers, they were removed. When they tried to go leafleting they were prevented from doing so. When they got themselves a contact point at a private mailbox company, that companys premises were picketed until the owner agreed to close their mailbox. Thunk are you actually suggesting none of these things was the correct thing for the anarchists and socialists involved to do? None of the things Ive just mentioned the fascists doing constituted 'attacking people', but they are a natural precursor to more sinister things, if you cant understand that, Thunk, which you cant seem to, you are a bit naive at best, or as others have suggested, fash in disguise.

No. I haven't said that at all. Do you read anything I've said? Why the hell would I oppose those things?

Because all of them, unapologetically, denied a fascist group the right to free speech which you so vehemently defend. Free distribution of propaganda in the form of posters / stickers or leaflets, and free communication with groups and individuals (via, I dont know, a mailing address?) come into the 'free speech' category.

If the nazis who killed the 16 year old anarchist were doing leaflets when antifascists found them, would they have to wait until the nazis were done leafleting before administering a kicking, so as not to offend Thunk?. Its lucky we have the Wordwide Arbiter Of How Its Acceptable To Deal With Far Right Groups on here finally to keep us right.

Seriously can Thunk get banned before coming back from his / her homework? If people got bans recently for overt Irish nationalism / republicanism, advocation of free speech for Nazis is worth one?

Rofl you want to no platform me? You're pathetic.

I've already debunked everything you've said, the only basis anyone here has had for defending this authoritarian garbage is calling me a fascist. Pull your head out of your ass and then maybe you'll recognize the smell of your own bullshit you elitist prick.

Ex-temp
Offline
Joined: 12-01-09
Feb 18 2009 13:25
Thunk wrote:
You're pathetic.... Pull your head out of your ass and then maybe you'll recognize the smell of your own bullshit you elitist prick.

like I said earlier, flaming and personal abuse are forbidden in these forums. Continued breach of forum rules results in users being banned.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Feb 18 2009 14:28
Thunk wrote:
[
I've already debunked everything you've said, the only basis anyone here has had for defending this authoritarian garbage is calling me a fascist.

What specifically, Thunk, have you debunked on this thread? And no, you've been given plenty of reasons for defending this "garbage." You just aren't listening.

Thunk
Offline
Joined: 16-02-09
Feb 18 2009 15:27
jesuithitsquad wrote:
Thunk wrote:
[
I've already debunked everything you've said, the only basis anyone here has had for defending this authoritarian garbage is calling me a fascist.

What specifically, Thunk, have you debunked on this thread? And no, you've been given plenty of reasons for defending this "garbage." You just aren't listening.

Right, lucky for me this is an open forum that anyone can see. You guys can bask in the glory at beating my arguments, meanwhile anyone with common sense including ACTUAL anarchists can see this topic so I don't really have to repeat myself or say much more (except to answer Jef's points, but I'm in class right now).

Authoritarian is an insult. But it's not meaningless, and you're not an anarchist.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Feb 18 2009 15:36

keep on questioning everything thunk. it's clearly going to get you far.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Feb 18 2009 15:42
Quote:
I've already debunked everything you've said, the only basis anyone here has had for defending this authoritarian garbage is calling me a fascist.

Eh? What have you debunked, exactly?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 18 2009 15:47
Django wrote:
Eh? What have you debunked, exactly?

Haven't you been reading the thread? Some people have said that they're not particularly concerned about the "right to free speach" of people who are organising to kick the shit out of them, therefore antifa just go around beating up people who disagree with them.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 18 2009 16:40
Thunk wrote:
I have argued all throughout this post that EVERYONE should be granted free speech. So I think it's pretty obvious that I am not a fascist, and for you people to jump to that conclusion is just sad. It's almost as if you've lost touch with what fascism actually is. My position is pretty consistent with the theory and the ideology, and if you've actually read anything I've said I think you would recognize that.

Actually Fascist often talk about the right to free speech when antifascists oppose them holding meetings and stuff. Especially nation "anarchists".

Thunk wrote:

I've already debunked everything you've said, the only basis anyone here has had for defending this authoritarian garbage is calling me a fascist. Pull your head out of your ass and then maybe you'll recognize the smell of your own bullshit you elitist prick.

I haven't seen you debunk anything.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Feb 18 2009 16:40

the only time anti-fascism is bad is when it's turned into a stand-alone political philosophy that automatically leads to class collaboration. Other than that, I have no ethical or moral problem with the idea of beating up reactionary scumbags.