DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

"Anarcho"-fascism

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 20 2008 11:39

I couldn't give a toss about races and would quite happily see my own 'race' cease to have any distinct cultural identity. i would disagree with both you and said 'African-American professor in urban studies' on this point. Knowing someone's race doesn't tell me anything useful or important about them.

Quote:
I am much more than a "worker," I'm a human being and heir to much greater legacy than my relationship to the means of production. Thats such a narrow 19th century manner of thinking its appalling.

Obviously, but being workers is what unites us with other people who are being exploited and so opens the way for collective action to change this society (where our creative energies are used to serve the ruling class) to a free society (where they could be used to their full potential). Noone would argue that we are 'just' workers. Anyway I could equally accuse you of saying that I am nothing more than the amount of pigmentation in my skin, which I suspect would be a more accurate summing up of your ideas than you made of mine.

RexRegex
Offline
Joined: 20-02-08
Feb 20 2008 11:41
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Any form of attachment to nationalism is a pure, undiluted poison for the working class. I'm in total solidarity with magnifico's points on this.

This is not the same as denying the existence of ethnic identity - such things clearly exist. But they cannot form any kind of pole around which we can form a resistance to capitalism, without capitulating the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is built on these divisions ... the nation state is the highest form of socio-political organisation that capitalist society can generate.

Do you really think that the _nation state_, in this age of transnational corporations and finance capital is the _highest_ form of "socio-political organisation"? What are the dates on these books you are reading? If anything the transition to a one world government of global capital is being ushered in by the ruling class, not it's opposite. Unless the EU, NAU, AU and other organizations somehow fell out of your communist analysis. You have to answer this question before I take anything else you say seriously.

Quote:
It is precisely the contradiction between the globalising tendencies of capitalism and its ability to go beyond nations that is the root of its spiral of war and imperialism. It is the task of the proletariat to destroy all these frontiers and the creation of a truly global community that is defined by its participants' humanity, not their ethnic, geographical or national origin.

Wow! There you go you are indeed in league with the ruling class. Let me give you a hint son, if your social ideal is the same as the ruling class- one of the two of you has been co-opted and I know who I'll place my bet on.

Quote:
This doesn't mean the destruction of all the aspects of previous cultures. Rather it means a synthesis of their best elements and the true humanisation of the whole of homo sapiens:

How will that be possible in an anti-authoritarian premise? I would say it would be impossible. So how to do that in an authoritarian premise without royally pissing off the parties that get the short end of the stick on this deal?

"[i]In the reconstruction and transformation of a world ravaged by decades of capitalist decay, the proletariat will inevitably confront problems of national, racial, and cultural divisions within its own ranks and within humanity as a whole. All these divisions will have to be faced, and discussed freely and openly within the workers’ councils and the territorial councils through which the proletarian power will deal with the rest of the population. But the final liquidation of these divisions can only be achieved by the continuous revolutionizing of the social fabric, which will undermine the material basis of such divisions and render them obsolete.

Hyperbole for destroying the unique society in each place. Impossible without gulags.

Quote:
As it moves towards the human community, the proletariat will initiate the fusion of all existing cultures into a truly universal culture, a higher synthesis of every previous human cultural achievement into the new culture of communism. With the emergence of this universal culture, the ‘tribal’ phase of human prehistory ends, and the real history of humanity begins

More demagogy and nothing in substance.

RexRegex
Offline
Joined: 20-02-08
Feb 20 2008 11:48
magnifico wrote:
I couldn't give a toss about races and would quite happily see my own 'race' cease to have any distinct cultural identity.

Indeed, you are a cultural nihilist. I have zero sympathy however I grant you as being a victim of your generational forces beyond your control.

Quote:
i would disagree with both you and said 'African-American professor in urban studies' on this point. Knowing someone's race doesn't tell me anything useful or important about them.

Promoting your white privilege does not make you an anti-racist hero: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6154391225543898610

Quote:
Obviously, but being workers is what unites us with other people who are being exploited and so opens the way for collective action to change this society (where our creative energies are used to serve the ruling class) to a free society (where they could be used to their full potential). Noone would argue that we are 'just' workers. Anyway I could equally accuse you of saying that I am nothing more than the amount of pigmentation in my skin, which I suspect would be a more accurate summing up of your ideas than you made of mine.

Nah, biological race/racism doesn't interest me nearly as much as other factors but it does help a lot in quickly understanding someone on how they react to such subjects.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 20 2008 12:03

I'm far from a cultural nihilist I just don't see any value in confining cultural traits to specific races, nationalities or 'tribes'.
I don't see how by arguing that the idea of race is a pointless social construct I'm promoting 'white skin privilege', rather by saying there is no difference between races I am denying any justification for privileging one over another (and no I'm not watching an hour long 'documentary' about it either).

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Feb 20 2008 12:12
Quote:
Do you really think that the _nation state_, in this age of transnational corporations and finance capital is the _highest_ form of "socio-political organisation"? What are the dates on these books you are reading? If anything the transition to a one world government of global capital is being ushered in by the ruling class, not it's opposite. Unless the EU, NAU, AU and other organizations somehow fell out of your communist analysis. You have to answer this question before I take anything else you say seriously.

None of these organisations are nation states. They are instruments of co-operation between various bourgeois states, not the integration of the same. They are shot through with various rivalries which severely limits their capacity for action on the world stage. Capitalism cannot, will not, ever create a one world government unless it manages to overcome its imperialist contradictions. There is no evidence whatsoever that capitalism is capable of doing this and, if anything, these tensions are almost certain to increase even further in the coming period.

Quote:
Wow! There you go you are indeed in league with the ruling class. Let me give you a hint son, if your social ideal is the same as the ruling class- one of the two of you has been co-opted and I know who I'll place my bet on.

Exactly what social ideal have I expressed which is the same as the ruling class?

Quote:
How will that be possible in an anti-authoritarian premise? I would say it would be impossible. So how to do that in an authoritarian premise without royally pissing off the parties that get the short end of the stick on this deal?

What's the short end of the stick? What are you so afraid of losing?

You really think we're talking about not allowing Maoris to carry on doing their tribal dances? It's more about Maoris teaching anyone who wants to around the world to join in - if they want to. And the Maoris will get to watch "American" films, "French" novels, and "German" philosophy. There will be an eventual fusion of all these elements because this is what happens when people get together and eventually a new global culture will emerge that will naturally synthesise all these elements. In some respects this is happening already - the fact that it happens in a specifically capitalist framework doesn't make it a bad thing in itself any more than shoes are evil simply because they are, at present, produced in capitalist factories.

On the contrary, it's the attempt to artificially preserve boundaries once all rational foundation for their existence has gone, that will lead to "gulags".

RexRegex
Offline
Joined: 20-02-08
Feb 20 2008 12:14
magnifico wrote:
I'm far from a cultural nihilist I just don't see any value in confining cultural traits to specific races, nationalities or 'tribes'.

Lets go over this once more: nihilism: Any of _various philosophical positions_ that deny that there are objective foundations for human value systems. (emphasis added) http://www.answers.com/topic/nihilism

Quote:
I don't see how by arguing that the idea of race is a pointless social construct I'm promoting 'white skin privilege',

Watch the video in link I provided and tell me again that you are not promoting the privilege of being white. The video is an hour long. I can wait.

Quote:
rather by saying there is no difference between races I am denying any justification for privileging one over another (and no I'm not watching an hour long 'documentary' about it either).

No actually what it sounds like to me is that you are denying your own role in the invisible privilege that you play as an oppressor in the Marxist social theory you espouse. Make informed decisions about what you advocate. As someone interested in these subjects for a long time I learned _a lot_ in that video I would of never thought of before had not the Marxist professors spoke of it so succinctly.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 20 2008 12:29

dp

RexRegex
Offline
Joined: 20-02-08
Feb 20 2008 12:29
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Quote:
Do you really think that the _nation state_, in this age of transnational corporations and finance capital is the _highest_ form of "socio-political organisation"? What are the dates on these books you are reading? If anything the transition to a one world government of global capital is being ushered in by the ruling class, not it's opposite. Unless the EU, NAU, AU and other organizations somehow fell out of your communist analysis. You have to answer this question before I take anything else you say seriously.

None of these organisations are nation states.

The EU is.

Quote:
They are instruments of co-operation between various bourgeois states, not the integration of the same. They are shot through with various rivalries which severely limits their capacity for action on the world stage. Capitalism cannot, will not, ever create a one world government unless it manages to overcome its imperialist contradictions. There is no evidence whatsoever that capitalism is capable of doing this and, if anything, these tensions are almost certain to increase even further in the coming period.
Quote:
Wow! There you go you are indeed in league with the ruling class. Let me give you a hint son, if your social ideal is the same as the ruling class- one of the two of you has been co-opted and I know who I'll place my bet on.

Exactly what social ideal have I expressed which is the same as the ruling class?

Advocating for a singular global multicultural authority to have hegemony over all geographical affairs from the local level on up.

Quote:
Quote:
How will that be possible in an anti-authoritarian premise? I would say it would be impossible. So how to do that in an authoritarian premise without royally pissing off the parties that get the short end of the stick on this deal?

What's the short end of the stick? What are you so afraid of losing?

I don't have much but my honor and my life. There is little, if anything in the current society I would not happily throw away.

Quote:
You really think we're talking about not allowing Maoris to carry on doing their tribal dances?

How about you leave the Maoris alone and let them do as they will?

Quote:
It's more about Maoris teaching anyone who wants to around the world to join in - if they want to. And the Maoris will get to watch "American" films, "French" novels, and "German" philosophy.

On the contrary I would make it my personal mission in life to save the Maoris _from_ American films.

Quote:
There will be an eventual fusion of all these elements because this is what happens when people get together and eventually a new global culture will emerge that will naturally synthesise all these elements. In some respects this is happening already - the fact that it happens in a specifically capitalist framework doesn't make it a bad thing in itself any more than shoes are evil simply because they are, at present, produced in capitalist factories.

On the contrary, it's the attempt to artificially preserve boundaries once all rational foundation for their existence has gone, that will lead to "gulags".

Yeah those are already being planned aren't they? It could be for the Amish. Or Consitiutionalists. Perhaps gulags for the FARC. And something doesn't lead me to believe that the Israeli/Middle East conflict would be settled by the workers paradise.

I recently read elsewhere of the "fusion" of globalization in a cultural context, a Disneyopia as it were.

So far the short end of stick has been the communist revolutionaries advocating these things as it happens that the ruling class is bringing these to come about. So whither or not the "shoe factory" is bad [excellent example btw] I should ask _why_ is this being promoted by the ruling classes you say you are opposed to. That "their motive doesn't matter" does not suffice because it does matter and I believe your ideology is leading you straight to the guillotine, exactly why/how, I don't have an answer for at this time.

Good conversation all around.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 20 2008 12:31
RexRegex wrote:
Lets go over this once more: nihilism: Any of _various philosophical positions_ that deny that there are objective foundations for human value systems. (emphasis added) http://www.answers.com/topic/nihilism

I guess I agree with the third definition, that's not a definition of nihilism i've heard before however, and I don't see how it is relevant to what we are talking about. I assumed that by calling me a cultural nihilist you were saying that because I don't care about whether different races have distinct cultures then I don't care about culture per se, which i definitely do.

RexRegex wrote:
Watch the video in link I provided and tell me again that you are not promoting the privilege of being white. The video is an hour long. I can wait.

I'm not saying that racism (or 'white skin privelege') doesn't exist, I'm saying that there is no scientific basis for it and that it shouldn't exist. If those Marxist professors disagree with me on that then they need to read their Marx again. I also think (as did Marx) that class is far more important in this respect - there are plenty of rich and powerful black people (hell it looks like the next US president will be black).

RexRegex wrote:
No actually what it sounds like to me is that you are denying your own role in the invisible privilege that you play as an oppressor in the Marxist social theory you espouse.

I didn't say anything about my own role or even about how this current society works, I was talking about there being no rational justification for segragating people into different races, tribes etc in the future as you advocate. I know we come from different politcal traditions and are likely to talk at cross purposes sometimes but you're starting to sound a bit disingenuous.

RexRegex
Offline
Joined: 20-02-08
Feb 20 2008 12:43
magnifico wrote:
I didn't say anything about my own role or even about how this current society works, I was talking about there being no rational justification for segragating people into different races, tribes etc in the future as you advocate. I know we come from different politcal traditions and are likely to talk at cross purposes sometimes but you're starting to sound a bit disingenuous.

Fair enough, I'll tell you my reasons why: Symmetry is beautiful. Furthermore, meaningful, non-alienated and non-mediated connections between human beings starts between individuals and radiates outwards and cannot (that is non mediated or alienated) be enforced at the macroscopic social level without totalitarianism and the destruction of liberty. So in short I want this for my greater tribe to live in peace without statist interference. If people wish to move on, fine. If it's not for the youth, fine. But my self-determination will have to happen first before anything can be done about other regions governments have traditionally only exploited and the ability to resist the encroaching government controls is being more and more difficult as time goes on.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 20 2008 12:43
Quote:
I should ask _why_ is this being promoted by the ruling classes you say you are opposed to. That "their motive doesn't matter" does not suffice because it does matter and I believe your ideology is leading you straight to the guillotine, exactly why/how, I don't have an answer for at this time.

I guess the main difference between us is that we don't just look at whatever the ruling class is doing and decide to do the opposite, rather we see that capitalism has some progressive qualities such as developing the forces of production and breaking down the artificial barriers between different groups of people which bring us closer to a free society. We seek to supercede capitalism, not to turn the clock back to some primitive time when everyone who didn't have the plague spent their whole day hoeing but at least there were no immigrants.

The Maoris are not a homogenous group, there are people with many different personality traits who would all be defined by you as Maoris, some of them will want to do Maori dances, some will want to watch American films, who are you to keep them isolated so they don't have that choice?

Also not that I think it's important but the EU is not a state (yet) regardless of whatever hysterical guff your British 'comrades' might have told you. If capitalism did manage to constitute itself into one world 'superstate' that would still be nothing like what we want, which is no states at all, not one all powerful state. It would, however, make it easier for oppressed people around the world to realise that we have a common enemy and to execute a world revolution, so would be positive in that respect.

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Feb 20 2008 12:46
RexRegex wrote:
Demogorgon303 wrote:
None of these organisations are nation states.

The EU is.

oh no it isn't. the EU is a federation of westphalian states (i.e. states conceived as discrete and bounded legal-territorial entities).

ps. there is no such thing as a 'nation-state' anyway. there are plenty of states, and some things one might call a 'nation', but none can ever precisely converge to form an exact nation-state. there is always seepage and grey areas at the margins. and even away from the margins there is always contestation about what constitutes a nation, where its boundaries lie, and what factors produce a nation.

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 20 2008 12:57
RexRegex wrote:
Fair enough, I'll tell you my reasons why: Symmetry is beautiful. Furthermore, meaningful, non-alienated and non-mediated connections between human beings starts between individuals and radiates outwards and cannot (that is non mediated or alienated) be enforced at the macroscopic social level without totalitarianism and the destruction of liberty. So in short I want this for my greater tribe to live in peace without statist interference. If people wish to move on, fine. If it's not for the youth, fine. But my self-determination will have to happen first before anything can be done about other regions governments have traditionally only exploited and the ability to resist the encroaching government controls is being more and more difficult as time goes on.

Noone's talking about 'enforcing' it from above, we would like the working class to recognise that such relations are in their best interests and so to bring it about from below. Anyway, what is your 'tribe' - people of the same skin colour, the same nationality, the same hobbies or what, and what makes that distinction so special? I reckon people in the same socio-economic position in different countries have more in common with each other than they do with many people they share a geographical location with.

RexRegex
Offline
Joined: 20-02-08
Feb 20 2008 12:57
ftony wrote:
RexRegex wrote:
Demogorgon303 wrote:
None of these organisations are nation states.

The EU is.

oh no it isn't. the EU is a federation of westphalian states (i.e. states conceived as discrete and bounded legal-territorial entities).

Alright alright that may be the case but keep in mind that: it has a currency, courts, it's laws supersedes nation-state laws and they can take actions to punish members. For all intensive purposes it is a "state-like" organization.

Quote:
ps. there is no such thing as a 'nation-state' anyway. there are plenty of states, and some things one might call a 'nation', but none can ever precisely converge to form an exact nation-state. there is always seepage and grey areas at the margins. and even away from the margins there is always contestation about what constitutes a nation, where its boundaries lie, and what factors produce a nation.

Completely agreed, Ill note that my interests lie with nationalities and other populations such as clans/tribes.

I'll also note that I only represent my own views on the subject and I know of National Anarchists who have views that are not the same as my own.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Feb 20 2008 13:09
Quote:
Advocating for a singular global multicultural authority to have hegemony over all geographical affairs from the local level on up.

They're not interested in anything of the kind. Actually, I should qualify that. The American bourgeoise certainly wants to run the entire world. So does the British. So does the French. Unfortunately for them, none of them have the capacity to defeat all their rivals. You're still not dealing with the question of imperialism.

Quote:
The EU is [a nation state]

No, it isn't. It's primarily an economic alliance which the various participants use to confront the US and China. Are you seriously suggesting that the UK, France, Germany no longer exist as national entities (which is what would have to happen in order for the EU to become a true nation state in its own right)? And, you haven't responded to any of my points about the rivalries that penetrate the EU to its core.

Quote:
How about you leave the Maoris alone and let them do as they will? On the contrary I would make it my personal mission in life to save the Maoris _from_ American films.

Very noble suggestion, except you're contradicting yourself, because you're talking about denying them a particular cultural product. I on the other hand haven't suggested forcing them to do or not do anything. I think they'll be more than happy to share in the abundance brought about by communism, as will the vast majority of other people on the planet. How will you save them from American films in any case?

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. The ruling class doesn't care one way or another for cultural intersection unless it enables them to sell products. It is this need that has globalised capitalism (a process Marx described back in 1848!), just as the need to exploit more and more labour caused them to socialise production. At the same time, it is their nature as an exploiting class that prevents them from moving beyond this framework of national frontiers and exploitation, even as they create the very conditions that allow such an advance. They are thus caught in a contradiction from which they cannot escape. Only the proletariat can unchain society from the impasse that this contradiction creates, by destroying national frontiers and completing the socialisation of labour.

They do, on the other hand, care very much about the adherence of the working class to their own policies. And they deliberately forment division in order to prevent unity amongst the working class. The purpose of all the ideologies of globalisation is to justify the domination of weaker states by the stronger, just as anti-globalisation (like "save British jobs", etc.) is there to make workers look to the bourgeois state for protection against the ravages of capitalism.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 20 2008 13:09
Quote:
Ill note that my interests lie with nationalities and other populations such as clans/tribes

Defined by...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 20 2008 14:03
Quote:
Alright alright that may be the case but keep in mind that: it has a currency, courts, it's laws supersedes nation-state laws and they can take actions to punish members. For all intensive purposes it is a "state-like" organization.

1. It’s ‘for all intents and purposes’, not ‘intensive purposes’
2. ‘It’s’ is not possessive, it stands for ‘it is’
3. If you’re going to use lots of unnecessarily long words to try and make your arguments sound more clever, make sure your basic language skills can keep up with your thesaurus.

Anyway, on the actual topic, the EU is not ‘state-like’. It does not at present maintain a dedicated internal military, not all members subscribe to the common currency, vetos and opt-outs by actual states from laws and directives are common, and member punishments are both rare and rarely make much impact. Trade, borders and policing are entirely sovereign enterprises. The Treaty of Lisbon could reverse some of this, but at present, the EU is not state-like.

And even if it was, so what? You reckon Morris-dancing is going to die out any faster because the Queen’s mug is no longer on ‘local’ coinage?

bugbear
Offline
Joined: 5-12-06
Feb 20 2008 14:12
RexRegex wrote:
Completely agreed, Ill note that my interests lie with nationalities and other populations such as clans/tribes.

I'll also note that I only represent my own views on the subject and I know of National Anarchists who have views that are not the same as my own.

In your view, how does a person identifying themself primarily in terms of their nationality/tribe/culture offer them more potential for achieving genuine liberation than if they identify themself primarily in terms of their class?

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Feb 20 2008 15:18

Right both these 'anarcho'-nationalist muppets have been banned. Sorry it took so long. Nutters on the internet, hey? Ten a penny.. smile

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 20 2008 15:47

Aw I was interested in seeing a feat of theoretical gymnastics sad

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Feb 20 2008 17:23

they were far more sane than you'd expect really. Not their ideas, their manner.

Manners are all: i am converted.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Feb 20 2008 20:29

About the "national anarchists":

I have (on some email lists, publications) written quite a bit about different shades of national anarchists, third positionists, etc. since, unfortunately, they are quite common in both Russia and Poland (although neither received a mention in the intro to the topic).

In short, they are a major pain in the ass, even more so in Poland than in Russia because at least in Russia there are a lot of people with a higher level of literacy in these matters. Here in Poland, such people are very pernicious because they manage to sell themselves as different brands of populists and antiglobalists and basic knowledge of different types of third positionist, national bolshevic, national syndicalist or ethnopluralist ideas is lacking. Worse yet, there is strong resistance to exploring this topic in some circles.

A few facts for the background:

There were basically two people who were in favour of joining left and right extremists some years ago - Okraska and Tomasiewicz. Both have tempered their views a bit against extremists and have settled into some form of populism which mixes left and right conceptions. Both of these people published regularly in anarchist magazines such as formed Mac Pariadka and currently Inny Swiat.

This cooperation has been criticized by a few parties: the liberal anti-fascist magazine Nidgy Wiecej (which is legalist and not in our political direction but which gathers information well), anarchafeminists, myself and people from our Warsaw group, members of the radical left and even New Popular Weekly, the publication of the class collaborationist social democratic trade union. On the other hand, all those who have criticized this are considered fascist hunting nuts by the old guard of the anarchist movement, which was born out of the anti-communist movement and which has right-wing tendencies, including some parts of the anarcho-syndicalist movement.

Tomasiewicz is famous in Western European antifascist circles for promoting, among other things, ethnopluralism in Poland. His "ethnopluralist manifesto", which was published by Inny Swiat, is very similar to Benoist. (Of course in order for local people to see what's wrong with it, they'd need lots of discussion on the topic and they don't want it because the local "authorities" of the anarchist movement are fine with it.) He has lots of other crazy ideas too - like thinking that revisionist zionists like Zhabotinsky were radical syndicalists, etc. In a pamphlet (which our friend unfortunately submitted an article to) on why we don't like the EU, he wrote that joining the EU would spread disfunctional behaviour like homosexuality, etc Of course, according to him, he has "nothing to do with the right" - when he is talking to opponents of the right. A more interesting description of his background, although not completely up to date can be found in the famous "ATTAC letter": http://de.indymedia.org/2002/07/26175.shtml

Some part of the text:

The founding members of ATTAC-Poland included people with a long record of collaboration with publications and organisations of the extreme right. Members of ATTAC-Poland's leadership also became editors or regular contributors to Obywatel (Citizen), a magazine with a clearly extreme right-wing slant.

One of these is Jaroslaw Tomasiewicz. A few years ago, he was active in fascist organisations such as Przelom Narodowy (National Breakthrough) and among nazi skinheads. He has also published articles in the virulently antisemitic magazine Mysl Narodowa Polska (Polish National Idea), published by Boleslaw Tejkowski, Poland's most notorious Polish antisemite. Tejkowski is the leader of the fascist Polish National Community (PWN), which has been responsible for numerous acts of racist violence in the streets of Polish cities.
Tomasiewicz has written for other fascist publications such as the hardline Krzyzowiec (Crusader) but most recently his writings have appeared in a new magazine, Templum, linked to Poland's most active fascist group, National Rebirth of Poland (NOP). The NOP is a part of the International Third Position (ITP), run by the Italian terrorist Roberto Fiore.

Tomasiewicz has also collaborated with extreme-right publications abroad, for example, Perspectives, a magazine founded by former members of the National Front in Britain, and the German extremist bulletin DESG-Inform. A prolific author, he dedicates his writings to spreading ideas inspired by the so-called Third Position and by the West European New Right. Under the guise of building an "anti-system opposition" based on an "alliance of the extreme right and of the extreme left", he has undertaken ideological and political penetration of left-wing, especially anarchist and ecologist, circles. In an attempt to increase his credibility he has succeeded in getting his articles published across the wider political spectrum.

Currently, he is a co-editor of ZaKORZENIEnie (Rootedness), which poses as a forum for the promotion of minority cultures. In fact it promotes the concept of "ethnopluralism", a term coined by the French New Right around Alain de Benoist and his GRECE think-tank. Ethno pluralism assumes that each political territory must be "pure", that is ethnically homogenous. According to ZaKORZENIEnie's policy statement, an individual does not have the right to change his ethnic or cultural identity without the consent of the ethno-cultural community to which he belongs.

"Rootedness" was published for some time as a supplement to the anarchist magazine mentioned earlier.

We don't carry Tomasiewicz's publications nor do we want to publish them for example on the internet. Unfortunately, other people submit them. A few months ago I had a run-in with a member of Workers' Initiative on this issue and I got a whipping as an awful dogmatic censor in his "anarcho-syndicalist" publication for this.

So it seems like if fascists dress as skinheads and have certain symbols like Celtic crosses or something, people identify them as such. When right-wing nuts, borderline facsists and nationalists act non-agressively, get PhDs and try to produce "respectable" publications, then the people who criticize them are nuts and they get by many of the rest. There seems to be no way to convince people like this that there are lots of shit ideas being thrown about because they really can't discern between these more sophisticated nationalist bullshit and their own antiglobalist populism.

Further, from the famous (at least in ATTAC circles), ATTAC letter:

Tomasiewicz's close aide Remigiusz Okraska, a former anarchist. Szczerbiec is an official publication of the NOP, renowned for denying the Holocaust. Successive issues of Obywatel carried sympathetic reviews of other extreme-right and antisemitic magazines such as Odala (published by Polish supporters of the British nazi Satanist David Myatt). Rojalista and Templum. In one of his articles, Okraska defends Jean Marie Le Pen, claiming that the French Front National leader has only been labelled a fascist because "he wants to remove the governing establishment from power".

Okraska and his friend Zychowicz are also famous for anonymous spamming on the internet. Zychowicz practically destroyed Indymedia and was one of the main people who led to a left portal deleting its comment section. Okraska got caught red handed spamming our portal, CIA, a few months back. Basically an egoist, Okraska wakes up and goes bezerk anytime he senses people are talking about him and sends dozens of comments, usually anonymously or trying to look like other personalities. Okraska went crazy on our portal when somebody published a news piece on Horst Mahler. It was Okraska's publication of Mahler which led foreign people to question what gets published in the magazine he edits - earlier articles with fascistic content were published but again, some people just couldn't see what was wrong with them. In his spam to the portal, some of which we published, Okraska claimed that "he could see absolutely no fascistic or antisemitic tones" to the article he had published by Mahler. We quoted the article which was about how the "German nation will be Resurrected". He wrote about a new world order which should be centered around three axes, including "the German Reich which never disappeared but just stopped functioning". And other shit.

Publishing such nuts as Roger Garaudy, Aleksander Dugin or Tomasz Gabiś doesn't seem to raise any suspicions with some people that something is wrong.

Some people really are quite tolerant one can say.

You can see how Eurasianists like Mateusz Piskorski get themselves involved with populist anti-globalists. Piskorski, is famously known as "the MP with the swastika" from an article about him in the mainstream press. (Of course, that paper is owned by a Jew, so you can't trust what they say.) Here's his famous picture: http://community.livejournal.com/radaware

Also: http://nigdywiecej.org.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=50

Now if one is "tolerant", you can argue that this picture was taken a few years ago when he was the editor of a pagan nazi publication. After that he went on to more respectable Eurasianism and being a parliamentarian with the Self-Defense Party.

So it would be really not nice of crazy paranoid people like myself to suggest in any way that it would be inappropriate for members of Workers' Initiative to appear at the Obywatel fest on a three-person panel starring themselves and Piskorski. But Urbanski and Ikonowiicz went and there comrades defended it claiming that "what should we do -lock ourselves up in our houses?" Meaning that is you don't want to go to to such right and left wing blending events, you're like a hermit holed up in your house. Besides being on the panel with the swastika boy, the whole festival was opened by Marek Jurek a parliamentarian who was most famous for leaving the Law and Justice Party because it was NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH and did not support legislation to ban abortion in absolutely all cases, even rape. (In effect, it is banned in all cases because doctors usually won't perform them at all, but that's besides the point.)

Tip of the iceberg but I should say that a few years ago it began to look like things might just be changing a bit but then the old timers reemerged a bit and gathered their masculinist friends who now try to convince people that issues like anti-sexism or anti-nationalism is some sort of "lifestyle anarchism" and irrelevant to the "struggle of the working class", which of course has to be along populist lines, so why on earth would you want to bring up silly little issues which are alienating to the church-going working class?

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Feb 21 2008 03:28

Maori is plural (as well as singular). Like fish. FYI...

Jefferson Proudhon
Offline
Joined: 21-02-08
Feb 21 2008 03:40

>Aw I was interested in seeing a feat of theoretical gymnastics

For those wishing to have an intelligent and civil discussion on these issues, feel free to join us on our list at:

http://groups.yahoo/com/group/attackthesystem

All serious debaters will be welcome, irrespective of their personal views. Only those who make threats or behave in a rude and incivil manner will be banned.

admin: link broken

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Feb 21 2008 08:15

I don't agree with this ban. The posters weren't disruptive or abusive as many others on libcom and they were posting on a thread directly related to their political positions. They didn't express any openly racist views, at least not yet. Besides, they were being creamed anyway, to the point where one of them all but admitted he didn't have any counter-arguments. It's not as if their views are totally removed from those of other posters on libcom anyway.

Jefferson Proudhon
Offline
Joined: 21-02-08
Feb 21 2008 13:42

Wrong link. Sorry.

http://groups.yahoo/com/group/attackthesystem

admin: link broken

bugbear
Offline
Joined: 5-12-06
Feb 21 2008 16:53
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I don't agree with this ban. The posters weren't disruptive or abusive as many others on libcom and they were posting on a thread directly related to their political positions. They didn't express any openly racist views, at least not yet. Besides, they were being creamed anyway, to the point where one of them all but admitted he didn't have any counter-arguments. It's not as if their views are totally removed from those of other posters on libcom anyway.

I'd say they are, but not enough to be worth a ban especially as they were keeping their posts isolated to this thread. Even if the admins didn't fancy debating it themselves other people already were and like you say were doing a pretty good job, so the ban was definitely premature at the very least.

Not that I'm going to lose sleep over it or anything mind.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Feb 21 2008 17:18

Agreed, libcom is for libertarian commies, Ban!

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Feb 21 2008 18:29

Why ban? I've heard very similar arguments from some Irish 'anti-imperialist' anarchists and I'm sure they wouldn't get banned...

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Feb 21 2008 18:40
Quote:
Agreed, libcom is for libertarian commies, Ban!

So no debate here with other political currents? Better ban that SP chap who hangs around here sometimes too.

Quote:
Why ban? I've heard very similar arguments from some Irish 'anti-imperialist' anarchists and I'm sure they wouldn't get banned...

Exactly. The only difference is these national anarchists are follow these concessions to nationalism to their logical conclusion and are honest about it.