Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

favorite anarchistic philosopher

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by stinagen, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. Spider

    Spider Experienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    BAHAHAHAHA see i told you I'd be accused of it eventually. If you read my post you'll see i did nothing of the sort, yet you still accuse me of doing it.

    Seems to be the general gist of the whole thread.
     
  2. Spider

    Spider Experienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    PS it does sound stupid when you apply it to a word which isn't an adjective
     
  3. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisaster Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    Nietzsche definitely has the most interesting of works, very peculiar and even maddening, making him my favorite writer... Though he often spoke against Anarchy:

    "What is bad? ...all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge. -The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry..." (#59)

    "There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction...

    "The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future..." (#60)

    All quotes are from The Anti-Christ, which was written in 1888 mind you
    where many anarchist ideals where different than those of now
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    @Spider, if that's all you got to answer, next time shut up.
     
  5. snookams

    snookams Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    438

    1

    4

    Feb 7, 2010
     
    not a huge fan of fred nietzsche, but here's a quote i think a lot of anarcho's should remember (at least that's my opinion) when fighting for a cause:

    "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    hopefully someone didn't already post this quote.
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Fight fire with fire.
     
  7. back2front

    back2front Experienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    The thing to remember in this context is that when Nietzsche wrote this anarchism was not fully developed as a philosophy (Anti-Christ was written in 1888 for example while the works of Kropotkin, which consolidated the ideas of anarchist-communism, were not written for a few years after that) and this was also around the time he fell out with Wagner (who had also once been a colleague of Bakunin). He was discussing belief in utopianism (Christian heaven, anarchist collective) to an extent where people become enslaved to belief rather than acting in the everyday world and using the 'will to power'. Nietzsche was fundamanetally against any form of slave morality and perhaps in the context of the Übermensch he wished people to empower themselves and become a 'nation of masters' where all forms of slavery would be abolished, which is in a sense anarchistic.
     
  8. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    back2front, stop dodging, answer me.

     
  9. back2front

    back2front Experienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    The thing to remember about free speech, and keeping with the philosophical outlook of this thread, is to have a look at John Stewart Mill. Mill was a social philosopher who is perhaps best remembered for his theory of utilitarianism, that is the concept of the 'greater good' but he was also one of the first philosophers to put shape to the concept of free speech. Mill put forward the idea that people should have:


    ... the right to seek information and ideas
    ... the right to receive information and ideas
    ... the right to impart information and ideas

    He formulated the idea of free speech and it should not be studied in isolation but in relation to other rights such as the right to a fair trial or freedom of the press for example. Mill's book "On Liberty" (1859) is regarded as one of the classic texts on human freedom. Mill also included what he called the "harm principle" into the concept and by it he meant that the only time authority should be used is to prevent harm to others. The ideas have been developed by others since.

    What shocked Mill was censorship in any form because he felt that only through discussion and debate could human society advance and to halt investigation and discussion, even if that seemed repugnant ,was morally wrong. What he was getting at was who decides what is right and what is wrong. If we censor something on the grounds that it is racist do we then censor someone who is concerned about not being able to find work in their own country because their government has brought in cheap and unorganised labour to appease their corporate paymasters? Do we censor those who question censorship itself? How do you draw the line when the line isn't obvious?

    I think what we've been seeing in this debate (before it degenerated into farce) is a general misunderstanding of censorship and what it entails in the wider context of what we call freedom and how it impinges on other rights. As a concept I like the idea of it but as all my earlier posts suggest I'm considering the 'harm principle' and asking questions about it at every turn because that is how you debate. (I also continually write critiques about anarchism by the way because it is imperative to keep on overcoming obstacles that arise - anarchism is a philosophy in flux after all. Critique is vital to the movement.)

    In the context of this thread we have one side which refuses to tolerate anything to do with anything which appears to be remotely fascist and another which questions such an authoritarian position. While I tend to side with the former I was struck by events at a recent demo. In the UK the leader of the British Nazi Party was given the green light to appear on the UK's flagship political programme under the notion of free speech (the BNP has elected representatives in the UK). Alarmed that it could be a platform for organisation antifa organised a series of demos across the UK. At our demo there were hundreds of us and only 20, yes 20, BNP supporters surrounded by rings of cops with riot squads waiting in the side streets. At the time I thought that we were giving those 20 people a platform that they wouldn't have otherwise had and with TV cameras about it actually raised their profile. Yes, our protest against free speech for Nazis raised their profile. The TV programme was a non-event anyway so I came away thinking about it and I began to questions whether or not we should have stood against free speech in this context.

    I have engaged with some of these guys in debate and every time they've been shot down because they cannot justify their hatred. In public debates etc with people looking on they effectively shoot themselves in the foot every time so again I began to question the fact that if these knuckleheads are out in the open and unable to justify themselves (in turn wrecking any profile they might have with certain members of the public); is this potentially useful to us as anti-fascists? The thing is that the far right since the mid-70's have began to try to integrate themselves using existing human rights legislation into the legal political process. In doing so they have a public voice anyway. It's all very well saying they SHOULDN'T but the fact is that they already DO so you have to consider tactics to work on this level as well, you have to be able to publicly and politically shoot the bastards down, as well as be prepared to confront them physically on the streets should they attempt to organise.

    There's little point in discussing a hypothetical future where 'everything fascist is banned' because that does not address the current reality on the ground. Consequently it's also important to develop appropriate tactics to tackle this. If fascists try to organise on my streets I believe in using maximum force to prevent them but I do see a difference between someone talking about doing something and somebody actually doing it. It's an important difference. We need to remember Mill's 'harm principle' here. Facist political parties are actually unable, at least here in the UK, to openly imply race hatred. They use buzz words like 'indigenous rights' so on the face of it the harm principle doesn't apply. However within their ranks and behind closed doors we all know exactly what's implied. My philosophy has always been 'not an inch' and 'never again' but still, everything is relative.

    I know a kid, we'll call him Henry, he's been interested in radical ideas for about 10 years. A while back Henry was talking to me about race and tribalism. He was talking about how anarchist syndicates are really something similar to a village or a tribe. He was then asking me what I felt if a group of whites decided by direct democracy they wanted no blacks in their tribe, that no blacks lived in their tribe anyway etc. Henry's no fascist, he's somebody asking questions and what worries me when people promote authoritarian censorship is what happens to kids like Henry in their implied regime? Henry's only trying to find things out to shape his own ideas. The difference is Henry's only talking about stuff.

    One guy I write to was once involved in organsied fascism - he said he quit because when he actually discussed the politics he realised there wasn't any justifictaion and felt that anarchism was a far better philosophy. The thing is it can be a matter of life and death. I still think, despite raising these examples, that we should not give fascists an inch but I think sometimes too that some people just need to hear a well-argued alternative.
     
  10. back2front

    back2front Experienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    Ungovernable if you learn to have a bit of respect I will answer your questions...
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    hahaha funny, the hypocrite who calls me an internet warrior and a fake anarchist wants some respect now !

    respect me and i'll respect you, otherwise go fuck yourself
     
  12. Probe

    Probe Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    why the fuck is everyone failing to see the point that ungov is trying to make?!
    jesus christ...
    what kind of an idiot would give their enemies the right to free speech?????

    like ungovernable said a few pages earlier
    "my tolerance end, where hate begins"
     
  13. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Thanks, at least someone understand my point !!!! I was starting to discourage myself. It's easy to understand my point, i think they just don't want to admit they are wrong..

    Sometimes I find this community really special and weird... here in quebec and also in france we would never have this kind of debate because there is a big consensus in anarchist side about not tolerating fascism freedom of speech... A lot of antifascists groups are involved in destroying the fascist propaganda (in france the nazis and other racists paste their propaganda papers everywhere on the walls), there are a lot of antifa groups who want to silence the fascists by force. They already done it in 1980-1990 because the nazis were representing 99% of the skinheads and they had to kick them out of the skinhead scene by force.... Maybe it's also because they know what nazism is because their country lived the occupation of nazis during the WWII, and they know we should do EVERYTHING to ensure this never happens again

    Maybe it's because we are conscious of the threat that represent fascism... It's like the russian peoples, I wonder if NGNM85 would tell the russian antifascists that they should be friendly with the nazis and give them freedom of speech... Nazis are a big threat over there, you can't fight them without violence. And you can't say the russian antifas are acting like fascists and authoritarians because they fight against fascism with COURAGE

    I think they are just trying to sound cool, to be "more anarchist than others"....
     
  14. Probe

    Probe Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    I think thats exactly whats happening here... :D
     
  15. Spider

    Spider Experienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    You keep saying that we aren't opposed to nazism and we would do nothing in the face of it. I'm opposed to censorship, that doesn't mean i can't rally against nazism or even defend myself and my fellow humans from those who would spread it through force. I see the point he is TRYING to make but he is failing spectacularly. But not only this he is being abusive and obnoxious in his attacks and in a refusal to even stop and think about what we are saying. I no longer care, I'm just posting to see if it is in fact possible to get a half intelligent response. I don't give a fuck if you think I'm "A fake anarchist" or just posturing on the internet to appear more of an elitist/anarchist. I'm putting forward the simple fact(not an opinion, this is by definition) that blanket censorship of ideas that an individual or group of individuals finds abhorrent is an authoriatative gesture, and can be likened to fascism in that sense. I personally (heres the opinion) find this gesture incompatible with my opinion of how anarchy should be run. I accept that past instances of "anrchy in action" decided that the blocking of certain propaganda was a necessary evil to try to protect their newly formed communes, but I also think that the way all of these states came to be greatly influenced this decision, and would not, I feel, prove effective in these modern times. Personally (opinion again) I would like to think that in a true anarchist state, ideas like censorship and coercion would be discouraged, not adopted as common policy.

    This in no way means that I am a "nazi hugger" or even that i support any of the ideas or actions of any discriminatory, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic fuckwits in the world. Nor do i support indifference or inaction in the face of them. By all means bring these groups the fuck down, but don't imprison people for posing questions or having ideas, educate them, engage them in debate, and if they hit you, hit 'em back ten times as hard.
     
  16. Protspecd

    Protspecd Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    466

    0

    0

    Mar 3, 2010
     
    Again, I have to disagree. The exploited thread, no respect was shown there even though I was respecting you. You are not necessarily clean neither. But on-topic, or off topic, this thread has gotten so out of hand I don't even know if it is hahah. I do have to say I am coming around to the way you are arguing here. I was watching a documentary on neo-Nazi's in Russia, made me fucking sick, plus the video on that family that go to funerals and protest against gays and shit. Speech that oppresses others should not be allowed to be expressed like that in public, it only breeds more hate and it is unfair on those who are being oppressed. I am tired and my post will read like I have just thrown up all over the screen, I hope you can understand what I am saying.
     
  17. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFem Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    6

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    I am surprised to hear the term "feminist fascist" being used by the same person who is after starting a debate longer than 10 pages dedicated to no free speech for Nazis (which I agree with btw), but you would never be called an Anti-Fascist fascist....That would be ridiculous. But because I called you twice on insults I deemed sexist, I get called a "feminist fascist"....how does that make sense??? It's okay to be passionate about anti-racism but not anti-sexism???

    And to whoever said it's the same people who are giving out to Ungovernable for his sexist insults who support free speech for Nazis...that's not true. I neither support sexist insults nor free speech for Nazis.

    Also Ungovernable, I never called you sexist, I said you were using sexist insults. There is a difference. I know people who say "faggot" and although they don't mean it as a homophobic insult (nor are they in anyway homophobic), I still call them on it, as it still offends a lot of people.
     
  18. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian Barbarian Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    2

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     

    But to "call someone out" just on a term they use offends others too, ones who want their right to say what they want to say so this argument goes both ways.

    I think this thread should be locked now.
     
  19. Protspecd

    Protspecd Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    466

    0

    0

    Mar 3, 2010
     
    Pfft, you trying to deny my freedom of speech for this thread? Fascist.
     
  20. AnarchoFem

    AnarchoFem Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    155

    6

    0

    Apr 15, 2010
     
    To call somebody on something that is sexist or homophobic offends that person? I can deal with that rather than it offending innocent people to be perfectly honest. And I doubt many people who are called on something like that are offended in the first place, they are probably glad that somebody has pointed it out to them, I know that's the way I would take it anyways.
     
Loading...