favorite anarchistic philosopher

So if you support the freedom of speech your a fascist now because someone out there in the world is racist? Now i agree, beating out racism is importantl and we all wish it to go away. But were human, it will ALWAYS be here, you are way to naive to think it'll disappear, maybe violent acts of it yes, but the thought of it? You cant stop a thought, its like the war on terrorism, your not going to stop an IDEA. I dont think. And for you to say that anything that i just wrote makes me racist in any way, then you are the piece of shit and just gives me more reasons as to why people are the problem and that human extinction is the only way to anything better than what we have now or in the near distant future. Now, there are no antifa chapters within 50 miles of me, but ive traveled long and far for anti-racist protests and ill be damned if ill have some asshole tell me otherwise because they are IGNORANT to my life.

 

Oh dear this thread has turned into another rather farcical comedy.

Ungovernable your rather reactionary replies and confrontational nature don't offer an arguement, just someone spitting bile and telling everyone else they're wrong. It's called an ideological hierarchy and it has nothing to do with anarchism. I always thought anarchism was about helping people not coercing them into a viewpoint which is a form of fascism. I'm all for critique and that's why if you read my post you'll see I don't think the arguement is clear cut, though I tend to accept the notion that freedom of speech is a given.

If you call for banning something and drive it underground, it becomes far more dangerous , less open to scrutiny and less easy to penetrate. By having freedom of speech, these far right ideas become EXPOSED in public and in my experience these creeps are very good at shooting themselves in the foot.

I mentioned the quote at the bottom of your post because it's by history's number 1 fascist and seeing you desire to ban everything these nazis say I though it was a little ironic. I'm not trying to prove anything my friend, I'm just someone asking questions.

 

yea its another reason why I don't say long stuff in here...na i'm just kidding

 

Maybe we could have a quiz that everyone had to take before regestring on this site to minimize the anarcho wannabees here..?
In a confrontation with nazis i wouldn't want to be side by side with the nazi huggers here, cos i'd probably be standing there all alone while they run home to their mommies crying "the nazis hit me even tho i defended them!".

 

Ungovernable, i love you. Yr fighting the good fight, I wish i had the patience to fight with fuckwits in the manner you do so. if you have the energy to continue doing so, go for it; otherwise i'd suggest organising outta the interwebz forum debate ghetto may be more enjoyable

Anywayz, for my two cents worth.
I certainly understand, up to a point, of what ppl are trying to get at; but its hardly the point. OF COURSE we can't stop ppl being fucking racist dicks or nazis or whatever. How the fuck can i change someone's opinions? What we can do is smash their ability to organise; and yes, this means preventing public 'free speech'.

Rampant racism and fascism are not political ideologies to be debated in the safety of the lecture theatre, but rather a politics committed to physical coercion and violence. Nazism is a conspiracy to murder, not a debate on politics to be had within the confines of an open and tolerant society. They openly organise against such notions, insofar as furthering an agenda of racial hatred and violence; if anything, the so-called 'denial' of these fucks' 'rights' to free speech should be seen as an act conducive to the formation of a society within which free speech can ACTUALLY occur in a meaningful manner. I consider the smashing of racist and fascist organisations, by any means necessary, to be inherently an act of anti-violence.

Further, name one organisation of the racialist political persuasion that has not employed violence as a means of improving its position. It certainly was/is not the case in Germany; in the establishment of the BNP; National Action is Australia; Golden Dawn; etc, etc. Protecting these pricks' 'rights to free speech' amounts to nothing more than, what i would deem, criminal negligence on one's own behalf.

 

Ungovernable and butcher et al, before you jump in please take the time to read back over what I have written throughout this thread.

In principle I am for freedom of speech but I have reservations. It was me who raised the question that giving freedom of speech to the far right could be counter-productive. It was me that suggested giving them any room could create a platform for them from which to organise and therefore I question the idea of giving them ANY room in the first instance, because they would remove our freedoms if they could and therefore in the long run giving them freedom of speech was de facto a stance AGAINST freedom of speech. In essence I'm agreeing with a lot of what you said AND without resorting to calling you names or insulting you.

I don't think it's that clear cut however which is why I'm ASKING QUESTIONS rather than making statements. For example I also ask the question is having fascists out in the open better than having them covert and underground? I think that's a very valid question to ask.

You seem to have taken my second question without considering what I said in any of my earlier points which perhaps you might like to go back and read. This and the fact that I am somehow an idiot, am useless, a nuisance fuckwit or whatever strikes me as being rather reactionary. Calling people names and telling them they are wrong isn't an argument, it's just somebody mouthing off.

I think you are quite clear that you think we shouldn't give racists a single inch and I tend to agree, it's just that I always question everything. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking questions. I don't think it makes somone an idiot. Your arguements might be better if you realised there are actual people on the other side of these computers and maybe having a little respect for them might go further than you think.

As someone involved in Antifa and who has been active in anarchist politics for nearly 30 years, someone who has confronted fascists on the street putting myself in danger, someone who has actually stood AGAINST fascists having freedom of speech etc I find it a little amusing when someone who has no idea who I am calls me names and tells me I know nothing about politics because I ask a few questions or challenge their position.

I wasn't ignoring anyone's arguements but I certainly tend to get put off when they adopt a schoolyard mentality and any actual debate turns into pointless name-calling and some form of 'game' in their own heads. Grow up.

 

Anyone else notice that its turning into everyone v. Ungovernable on this thread?

 

No, butcher, Anom and myself are firmly in his corner and its not about being devisive amongst all of us but its about two different schools of thought. It gets heated and I wish the name calling and childish remarks would stop on both sides, its counter-productive. But I certainly am not going to change my point of view because NGNM85 thinks I'm a 'nimrod' for being antifa or others say my views are 'fascist' or 'authoritarian' they can think what they want, like back2front I have spent a lifetime fighting them out of love for family, friends, and humanity in general. I don't expect anyone who hasn't led a simmilar lifestyle to comprehend or understand it, specially because I'm not as eloquent as others on here, but I will continue and maybe I'll die for it and maybe I won't.....who knows?

 

I'm with Ungoverable on this one, if we do give them freedom of speech, they are racists they will only use it to offend other people not help the society. It's like giving a murderer a gun.

But I really hate how you (Ungovernable) start insulting people.

 

The point of debate is to ask questions. In my first post on this thread I asked:

"There is one element to the freedom of speech argument brought up latterly and that is that far rightists seek to deny freedom of speech (and most freedoms in general) ergo to defend their right to freedom of speech is technically NOT a defence of freedom of speech per se?"

In my second post I asked moreorless the same question:

"But as I mentioned earlier do you defend the rights of persons who, given free reign, would squash your freedoms at the bat of an eyelid? Do we differentiate between someone who holds apparently racist viewpoints and those directly involved in organised racism? And where do you draw the line?

Organised fascism in every instance in history has curbed the freedom of others therefore to grant it free speech, which enables it to reach more people and room to organise, are you not in the long term going against the notion of free speech as a result? This is a question and not a statement."

Reading through your various replies which by this point had descended into name calling I noticed at the bottom of your posts a quote by Adolf Hitler and I asked you about this because if you are 'radically anti-fascist' and believe that fascists shouldn't have a word it's surprising that you have a quote from one of them. That's a fair enough question because it is IRONIC and if you want to read that as an insult then it's fair to suggest you are being reactionary. Nothing to do with 'games' - I've far more important things to do believe me.

In my third post I again asked similar questions:

"When fascists and authoritarians come into power one might consider how this came about; and one might consider that it was because they were granted freedom of speech and therefore freedom to organise in the first instance. The fact that somebody might listen is the very reason why ideas are so dangerous.

If one is for free speech one is against those who stand against it by default. I don't think the argument is clear cut however and that is my point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, sure, but are they entitled, if a group of people listen and accept those ideas, to organise on a platform those same ideas? Should fascists have the freedom to organise on a platform to promote their agenda in alignment with their right to speak in the first instance?"

I think I'm being fairly consistent on this point which you'll notice is moreorless in agreement with yours only I don't see the need to call names. At this point I asked you why you were being so antagonistic because shouting insults at people isn't a debate. It's almost as if you demand that people accept your take which on the face of it IS coercive. In anarchist philosophy (Bookchin et al) we talk about the 'hierarchy of ideas'. In society at the moment we have top-down management where one or more people tell everyone what to do. Your approach of calling people names rather than answering their questions IS a form of coercion which does indeed have nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchists help people. Anarchism is about community not who has the loudest voice. So I think my points are fair, and they are put fairly.

While still trying to maintain some semblance of debate I ask the question about whether it is better if Nazis are out in the open and publically exposed or hidden underground. That's a fair question to ask. But you seem to take these questions as personal insults and of you go on another tirade of name calling.

I don't see any point in continuing this thread with you unless you are prepared to have a bit of respect- note 'points of unity' on these boards. I think my position is quite clear but as I keep saying, I question everything. It's not contradictory to ask questions - it's how you learn to galvanise your own opinions. Question ALL authority ALWAYS!

Say for example that you are in power and you stop all free speech by Nazis - how do you decide who is a Nazi - am I a Nazi because I ask questions?

 

Currently reading At the Cafe and The Anarchist Revolution. Writings and conversations of Malatesta.

Something completely unrelated, was doing a search on the net the other day and a site on the Anrachistas of Argentina or Federación Libertaria Argentina (FLA) popped up. Here's the website http://www.libertario.org.ar/home.html link. It's all in Spanish. I was talking to my father-in-law and he being Argentinian is still abreast of much of the politics their and the FLA still has a considerable following.

 

Fantastic site, thank you nodz.....the links are incredible!

 

Yeah I thought it was a good site. Of course I have to get the SO to translate it

 

There’s no comparison. I would NEVER, EVER type anything so childlike and petty as “HA HA YOU’RE SO STUPID”. I don’t ever talk like that. I’ve been ridiculously civil to this individual, tried to patiently explain, reword things, and answered the same questions multiple times. I generally try to avoid attacking people personally or stooping to petty insults. I’ve lost count of all the personal attacks I’ve just let slide. When I finally make the determination that he is an idiot, I’m not trying to be inflammatory or provocative, it’s an inescapable conclusion based on voluminous evidence. There is no comparison, whatsoever.

That isn’t what I said.

"Money where their mouth is"? What the fuck does that mean? If you mean legitimate resistance to oppression, I'm all for it, in principle. The issue is the very specific instance of a few very specific self-proclaimed Anarchists acted in a very specific way. …Which is irrelevant, as I’ve explained.

Shit, I don’t think at least half the people on here are ideologically Anarchists. Certainly anyone who favors censorship and book burning CANNOT be an Anarchist.

That's not remotely what I said. I said that the US is, comparatively, a very free society, and I find that preferable to living in an actual police state. In many countries we could be executed for having this conversation. That doesn’t sound appealing to ME, personally.

Yes, I think we should try to make our society better, more equitable, more democratic, better living conditions for everybody. I mean, otherwise you don’t care. I happen to care.

I initially tried to be diplomatic about it, However, after he called me stupid for the tenth or twelfth time it didn’t seem out of bounds. That’s really pretty tame by comparison.

Well, to my eyes it was two questions. Am I or have I ever been involved in any political action besides web forums, second, have I ever been involved in what you call “direct action.” I thought I covered all the bases, yes on both counts.

No, again, words do have fucking meanings, incidentally. I said if a gang of neo-nazis staged a rally outside my home, I would call the police. Most definitely. That’s MY home. I get to make the rules on my property, and I don’t want those people around me or my family.

However, in a public setting, like Boston common, there’s different rules. I’m not saying I would just passively ignore or acquiesce to neo-nazi agitators. I’d very likely confront them, I’ve had heated exchanges with that sort in the past. Actually, from the sounds of it I’m the only one interested in confronting it. Censorship is not confronting it, it’s hiding it. You don’t win the war of ideas by burning books, disappearing people in the middle of the night, criminalizing speech, etc. That’s just shoving it under the rug. You beat it by dealing with it, tackling it in the open, full-on.

It doesn’t sound like it.

 

This goes way beyond poetic license, exaggeration, or mischaracterization into blatant lies and slander. At least direct your asinine comments to me, for christs' sake. If you're going to make accusations and insults like that have the fucking balls to say it to me. "Nazi hugger"?! What kind of crack are you smoking? I would think you would at least have more self respect than to say something so ridiculous, spiteful, and completely false.

 

The quiz was ironic and i didn't direct the word nazihugger directly to you because you weren't the only one and as Ungovernable mentioned i don't have any balls but i do have the ovarys to tell you that yes, ngnm, i do think you are a nazihugger.
By defending their rights you do defend them and you defend nazism. You are defending the nazis' right to say and think what they want and i assure you they don't speak nicely about most anarchists but you obviously don't give me or anyone else here the right to think or say what we want. You might concider it to not be ok for me to say things to you that you might feel is in any way insulting of you, maybe hurting you even, but still you defend the nazis to speak very ill of so many of us. If you find my previous post to be ridiculous and what not that might be because after having read this thread it is quite obvious to me you will not understand more well formulated posts anyway.
Oh and just one more thing, since you are the real anarchist and all, you might explain why i should do anything "for Christ's sake"?