"Anarcho"-fascism

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Feb 21 2008 21:55
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 think the highlighted bits are fairly relevant here. That they were getting hammered isn't the point, the point is that these are fascists poncing off the rhetoric of anarchism. If some BNP members came on the forums to defend some position of their's, we'd still ban them irrespective of how civil or non-racist (yet) they were being. Its also a world away from being in the SP.

I also think its a bit rough saying that anti-imperialists anarchists have that much in common with national anarchists. I mean, I might not agree with them but having that as part of a wider internationalist socialist position is miles away from national anarchism..

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 21 2008 22:14
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
Richard Hunt
(even in his Green Anarchist days)
was always a cunt.

"Even." grin I'd rather hang out with your average bonehead than, say, Steve Booth.

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 21 2008 22:26
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.

To be fair, it does seem odd to allow Bolshies in and not their brownshirt brethren. Or am I mistaken and do you automatically ban Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, etc.?

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Feb 22 2008 00:11
ed wrote:
I also think its a bit rough saying that anti-imperialists anarchists have that much in common with national anarchists. I mean, I might not agree with them but having that as part of a wider internationalist socialist position is miles away from national anarchism..

I didn't, well okay, let me explain. I said that the arguments presented weren't that different - obviously that was "so far". And I was being just a wee bit sarcky in relation to the why ban them bit - I do agree with the ban. Also I'd like to point out that the (really strikingly quite close) similarities to the arguments put forward by the National 'Anarchists' I am talking about are more particular to anti-imperialist 'anarchist' individuals I've encountered over the years in Ireland and not related to any organisational position.

But jesus the NA posters cudda wrote half the rubbish on the do you support aboriginal nationalism themselves.

quint's picture
quint
Offline
Joined: 20-12-05
Feb 22 2008 01:04

This is ridiculous. I finally broke off posting on anti-politics cause they were letting some national anarchist fuck post on there. That thread is here:

http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4347&hilit=

I can believe that some of the crazy primitivists and anarchy-means-i-get-to-do-whatever-i-want anarchists on anti-politics would want to discuss with national anarchists. But I can't believe that libertarian communists would have any interest in discussing with them. They should not only be banned, but they should be beaten up if anyone finds them in real life.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 22 2008 04:02
quint wrote:
I can believe that some of the crazy primitivists and anarchy-means-i-get-to-do-whatever-i-want anarchists on anti-politics would want to discuss with national anarchists. But I can't believe that libertarian communists would have any interest in discussing with them. They should not only be banned, but they should be beaten up if anyone finds them in real life.

For real!

And before Devrim comes on here talking about how this is promoting "gansterism," I'll just remind him that it's not "gansterism".... it's straight gangsta!

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 22 2008 05:43
mikus wrote:
And before Devrim comes on here talking about how this is promoting "gansterism," I'll just remind him that it's not "gansterism".... it's straight gangsta!

Actually, I would ban them. I don't think that they are even worth beating up.

Devrim

jambo1's picture
jambo1
Offline
Joined: 2-06-07
Feb 22 2008 06:38

i think the posters were not being over the top on here, but i dont understand why they wanted to post on here in the first place. they have their own forums that most here would not post on. i find them too preoccupied with primo style stuff and flirting too much with fash and third position politics for my liking. anyway i will go along with the ban, they serve no purpose on this forum.

yuda
Offline
Joined: 4-12-04
Feb 22 2008 07:54

A friend of mine who posts on here a bit when we were discussing the state of anarchism locally reckoned that anarchists aren't sectarian enough. I tend to agree with him.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Feb 22 2008 08:47
Quote:
They should not only be banned, but they should be beaten up if anyone finds them in real life.

Banning people (ie refusing to discuss with them) is one thing. Beating them up is another. Just for expressing ideas you don't like? If everybody adopted this attitude then that would be the quickest way to anarchy if that's the sort of anarchy you want. And why just beat them up, why not kill them? That would stop them putting forward their ideas if that's what you want to do.
Seriously, this is not funny. Beating up people with different ideas, or even just threatening to, is not on and should be denounced.

David UK
Offline
Joined: 5-09-04
Feb 22 2008 09:02

Anarcho-Fascism is serious bussiness.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Feb 22 2008 09:25
Quote:
Anarcho-Fascism is serious bussiness.

Perhaps, though I doubt it's a real threat, more a handful of harmless saddos. But that's not the point. The question is how to deal with them. Beat them up? Ignore them? Confront their arguments? I was just saying I'm against beating opponents up, not just because this would get out of hand but also because it's not effective either. And it's elitist: deciding what arguments other people should or should not hear. You can read their stuff without being affected, but don't feel it's safe to let others read or hear it.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Feb 22 2008 10:01

I find it amazing that people who happily condemn anything smacking of "Leninism" are so casual about the application of political violence. I'm with Capricorn on this one.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Feb 22 2008 11:35

I agree that Capricorn has put his finger on the issue. The casual calls for violence from some on this thread are disturbing. The criterion used is not the entirely valid one of defending the proletarian struggle or proletarian organisations against physical attack, but the suppressing of ideas per se. Perhaps we should recall the fatal step taken by the Bolsheviks when they shifted from using violence against those who took up arms against the revolution, to using it against those whose ideas were at variance with theirs.

I haven't studied the ideas of the 'national anarchists', but the response to them here seems to indicate the weakness that many anarchists still have for anti-fascist ideology. Fascists are still seen as somehow qualitatively different from leftists. I agree with Boulcolonialboy that there is no difference between the ideas of the national anarchists and those of the 'anti-imperialist' anarchists. They are just variants of bourgeois nationalist ideology.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 22 2008 11:55
Quote:
there is no difference between the ideas of the national anarchists and those of the 'anti-imperialist' anarchists. They are just variants of bourgeois nationalist ideology

On the other hand, generally only one of the two variants is likely to try and actively build an apartheid on the grounds of race. Call me hopelessly naive if you want, but little things like that do make a difference to how I approach people.

Carousel
Offline
Joined: 19-09-07
Feb 22 2008 13:48
Quote:
If some BNP members came on the forums to defend some position of their's, we'd still ban them irrespective of how civil or non-racist (yet) they were being. Its also a world away from being in the SP.

Astonishing. Is it like a values thing? It's as if the SP's hearts are in the right place but they’re strategically misguided whilst the BNP are evil or something. What do you think motivates BNP supporters, possession by demons?

Quote:
one of the two variants is likely to try and actively build an apartheid on the grounds of race.

There's no rule to say you have to love living amongst people from all different races. What would you have done with these people? the BNP seems an ideal sandbox.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Feb 22 2008 14:43
Alf wrote:
I haven't studied the ideas of the 'national anarchists', but the response to them here seems to indicate the weakness that many anarchists still have for anti-fascist ideology.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Wanted to start a thread a while back but never got round to it.. I'd say anti-fascism (in some guise or another) can be really important (say, for instance, if you live in Barking and Dagenham), but maybe the emphasis placed by anarchists on it is a bit much, and maybe the strategy being pursued isn't as applicable to the BNP in 2008 as it was for the NF in the 1970s/80s..

Alf wrote:
Fascists are still seen as somehow qualitatively different from leftists. I agree with Boulcolonialboy that there is no difference between the ideas of the national anarchists and those of the 'anti-imperialist' anarchists. They are just variants of bourgeois nationalist ideology.

This is a step beyond for me. First off, to defend Boul from 'guilt by association with the ICC' wink I'll just repost this. Boul, you can thank me later:

Boulcolonialboy wrote:
I said that the arguments presented weren't that different - obviously that was "so far". And I was being just a wee bit sarcky in relation to the why ban them bit - I do agree with the ban.

So Boul doesn't think that national anarchists and anti-imperialist anarchists are the same, just that on this issue they said similar things. Georges Sorel talked about syndicalism and the general strike. I'd still ban him if he posted on libcom and physically eject him if he turned up to a Brighton Solfed meeting.. smile

Secondly, Alf, I think you're taking the Otto Ruhle connection too far. I mean yeah, in the final instance, we're just as likely to get smashed, kidnapped, tortured, made to watch endlessly repeated youtube videos of revol in Prague and killed by social democrats and Tankies as we would fascists, but without wanting to piss on your bonfire, I feel like that's such a long way off that there's nothing we can really do to address that at this moment (especially not when national organisations number 100 at most). Also, if Respect or the CPGB starting organising on my campus or on my street I can honestly say I wouldn't worry about the increase in racist or political violence in the area. I don't think I could say the same about the BNP.. in terms of day-to-day interaction on my street, I'd say that the BNP would represent a marked difference from any leftists..

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 22 2008 15:53
revol68 wrote:
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I find it amazing that people who happily condemn anything smacking of "Leninism" are so casual about the application of political violence. I'm with Capricorn on this one.

except in reality they aren't, they are generally as useful in a scrap as me ffs. It's just empty posturing.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm more useful in a scrap than you. But that's another issue.

Anyway, I don't really see it as "political violence." Just a normal fight. And yeah if they were not doing much it would be a waste of time to go out of your way to beat them up, but fascist groups are very frequently violent, and also if they were in my face or anyone I know's face for my or their ethnic or racial background or anything like that I see absolutely nothing wrong with beating them up, just like I might want to fight someone for a lot of other reasons rather than simply political ones. I see this as a personal issue and not a political one. I don't like white nationalists of whatever variety, and I'd like to beat them up in at least some cases. It has nothing to do with defending proletarian politics or anything like that.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 22 2008 15:55
Saii wrote:
Quote:
there is no difference between the ideas of the national anarchists and those of the 'anti-imperialist' anarchists. They are just variants of bourgeois nationalist ideology

On the other hand, generally only one of the two variants is likely to try and actively build an apartheid on the grounds of race. Call me hopelessly naive if you want, but little things like that do make a difference to how I approach people.

Hell yeah, anyone who doesn't think this makes a difference at least in their personal attitude towards them is ridiculous.

David UK
Offline
Joined: 5-09-04
Feb 22 2008 16:15

Theres no reason to discuss how to deal with Anarcho-fascism as a problem because it's not a problem if we ignore it. Really. No one will EVER hear of anarcho fascists except academics with their heads ups their asses and other Anarchists. Because it only exists in their (and our) strange world of fantasy politics.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Feb 22 2008 16:32

We have comrades in Mexico who were kidnapped and tortured by Maoists. Comrades in Turkey have been beaten up by Stalinsts. If we look a bit further than Britain right this minute, the idea that we're physically safer from leftists than rightists starts to look a bit tenuous. This does not mean being complacent about the danger posed by fascists. Some threats were made by local fascists to attack our public meeting in Zurich and we made arrangements to defend it. We declined the offers of local leftists to form a 'united front' however. In the end the threat proved an empty one but the point still stands.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Feb 22 2008 16:41

Will all posters with nationalist sympathies be banned or are some types of nationalism to be tolerated?

Carousel
Offline
Joined: 19-09-07
Feb 22 2008 16:56
Quote:
Also, if Respect or the CPGB starting organising on my campus or on my street I can honestly say I wouldn't worry about the increase in racist or political violence in the area. I don't think I could say the same about the BNP.. in terms of day-to-day interaction on my street, I'd say that the BNP would represent a marked difference from any leftists.

I see your point now, on the grand scale of things racial violence is a lot worse than the left. My apologies.

Quote:
are some types of nationalism to be tolerated?

Territorial leagues, like the World Cup and the Eurovision Song Contest are OK.

lumpnboy
Offline
Joined: 17-03-06
Feb 22 2008 23:39

'National anarchists' showed up as a bloc at the anti-APEC protest in Sydney last year, more-or-less to announce their existence in Australia I think. They were maybe a bit less than a dozen, dressed in black, masked up and handing out leaflets of racist, nationalist rhetoric which also featured pictures of Marcos and praise of the Zapatistas IIRC. In Sydney they seem to have been organised in relation to this guy Welf Herfurth who moved to Australia from Germany, where he was heavily involved in one of the more successful neo-nazi parties (the NDP). In Australia he became heavily involved in the far right populist One Nation Party of Pauline Hanson before that collapsed, and now plays around with the networks of far rightism generally i.e. around people with histories of racist violence and of violence against radicals, leftists, anti-fascists etcetera, including recently. I have no idea who the people were marching behind the National Anarchist banner in Sydney, and they certainly claimed they were committed to non-violence. Maybe they do fantasize some polite, respectable far rightism, but I doubt it.

I'm in Melbourne, so I may have missed it, but I'm not aware of anything they've done since, except for going to the annual nazi concert in Melbourne. But if they started to get organised or to take action in line with their politics in any real way, I certainly wouldn't want to exclude the use of force as part of efforts to respond. Australia is a hideously racist country with a hideously racist state, and far rightists are only a tiny part of the world of racism here. But people who want to try to organise another Cronulla pogrom aren't just sharing their ideas however much they participate on any forum that will discuss with them.

Carousel
Offline
Joined: 19-09-07
Feb 23 2008 13:15

Hmm. So it's the racist angle that's the problem? Is a kind of avowedly non-racist nationalism OK, or even possible? If a kind of “pragmatic territorialism” is substituted for the Nordic values polemic, it’s not far off what a) Your average punter sets out when you squeeze a conversation out of ‘em on immigration say, and b) What, arguably I suppose, your IWCA would be driving at. (Ho ho. Sorry, bit of controversy there).

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Feb 23 2008 18:27
quint wrote:
This is ridiculous. I finally broke off posting on anti-politics cause they were letting some national anarchist fuck post on there. That thread is here:

http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4347&hilit=

The soul brother in question was banned. But only for reasons of ennui, I think the most haughty of all alibies. But it is also true that a/p has abandonned all reason and collectively 'done a kurtz'.

quint wrote:
I can believe that some of the crazy primitivists and anarchy-means-i-get-to-do-whatever-i-want anarchists on anti-politics would want to discuss with national anarchists. But I can't believe that libertarian communists would have any interest in discussing with them. They should not only be banned, but they should be beaten up if anyone finds them in real life.

The ritualised 'breaking off' from the aunty-pol miasma as pretext for swearing allegiance to the flag of Libcom is a curious psychopathology. Almost as if it were articulating an atavistic urge to belong. Almost like spiking a line of pigs' heads at the boundary of one's tribal area. Almost as if ‘aims and principles’ meant one didn't have to ever think uncomfortably again.

But don't dwell on what grounds certainty and all that is given. The discussions 'there', in a downward spiral of fetid liberal 'tolerance', have moved on since the prodigal Quint parted with nary a tata.

Now it's got pro-Israelites arguing along the lines of, 'we may be right wing but we are also interesting' and Kosovans doodling hypothetically, 'well, wouldn't you be upset if Hitler raped your sister?'

All these are welcomed enthusiastically to what has become a toxic Burgess Shale-like stew of outlandish perversity. But that is to assign permission a certain glamour, in reality isn’t it all, really, just tawdry and cheap? The glorifying of unmanly weakness? Doesn’t piss-reeking auntie-pol give normal anarchists a bad name? Shall we make up our tattooed minds on that one along the inscribed borders of our given allegiance?

They took my advice - they brought it back
National costume was all-over-black
There were corpses in the avenues and cul-de-sacs
Piled up neatly in six-man stacks
Hanging from the traffic lights and specially made racks
They'd hang you for incontinence and fiddling your tax
Failure to hang yourself justified the axe
A deedely dee, a deedely dum
Looks like they brought back hangin' for everyone

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 23 2008 18:48
fort-da game wrote:
The ritualised 'breaking off' from the aunty-pol miasma as pretext for swearing allegiance to the flag of Libcom is a curious psychopathology.

Talking nonsense is an even more curious psychopathology.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Feb 24 2008 15:11
Ed wrote:
Alf wrote:
Fascists are still seen as somehow qualitatively different from leftists. I agree with Boulcolonialboy that there is no difference between the ideas of the national anarchists and those of the 'anti-imperialist' anarchists. They are just variants of bourgeois nationalist ideology.

This is a step beyond for me. First off, to defend Boul from 'guilt by association with the ICC' wink I'll just repost this. Boul, you can thank me later:

Boulcolonialboy wrote:
I said that the arguments presented weren't that different - obviously that was "so far". And I was being just a wee bit sarcky in relation to the why ban them bit - I do agree with the ban.

So Boul doesn't think that national anarchists and anti-imperialist anarchists are the same, just that on this issue they said similar things. Georges Sorel talked about syndicalism and the general strike. I'd still ban him if he posted on libcom and physically eject him if he turned up to a Brighton Solfed meeting.. smile

Thanks Ed.

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 24 2008 21:09
David UK wrote:
Theres no reason to discuss how to deal with Anarcho-fascism as a problem because it's not a problem if we ignore it. Really. No one will EVER hear of anarcho fascists except academics with their heads ups their asses and other Anarchists. Because it only exists in their (and our) strange world of fantasy politics.

Bingo.

zarathustra
Offline
Joined: 8-12-07
Feb 24 2008 21:15
yuda wrote:
A friend of mine who posts on here a bit when we were discussing the state of anarchism locally reckoned that anarchists aren't sectarian enough. I tend to agree with him.

That's what Albert Meltzer always said.

re: political violence. Violence is, as Clausewitz said, the continuation of politics by other means. You can't just just dismiss it off hand. I wouldn't have put a bullet between Lenin's eyes because he was violent, but because he was being violent to my side. The Bolshevik execution of the royal family was the only thing they did right. Freedom is self-responsibility, and self-responsibility implies self-empowerment. When an individual carries out violence, 100 tons of self-responsibility are put on their shoulders, and it is up to them and others to determine if they did right or wrong.