favorite anarchistic philosopher

Errico Malatesta,
Bakunin,
Proudhon (not a fan of mutuellism or his sexist attitude),
Nestor Makhno (but not really a fan of the platformist)
Elisee & Elie Reclus,
Voline,
Emma Goldman,
Carlo Cafiero,
Joseph Dejacques,
Sebastien Faure,
Maurice Joyeux,
Otto Ruhles,
Ricardo Flores Magon,
Subcommandante Marcos,
Emiliano Zapata,
Orwell,
Normand Baillargeon (from montreal),
Mumia Abu Jamal,
Louise Michel,
Voltairine De Cleyre,
Daniel Guerin,
Otto Ruhle,
E. Armand (anarcho-banditism / illegalism)
Emile Henry (same thing)
Emile Pouget
James Guillaume
Jean Grave
Pierre Besnard

Guy Debord (situationism is worth a read, but i'm not a fan of his marxist side)
Noam Chomsky (not a fan of his absolute freedom of speech including for negationist and nazi assholes, he's also a reformist on some point, anyway he says himself that he's not an anarchist but a comrade for anarchists)
Hakim Bey (Writtings on technology and T.A.Z. are worth reading, but also a lot of stuff i disagree with)
Fernand Pelloutier (a must-read to understand the history of combat syndicalism)
Max Stirner (worth reading but i'm definatly not an individualist)
Murray Bookchin (theories on libertarian municipalism is worth reading)

Jacques Mesrine (not an anarchist i know)
Charlie Bauer

I won't list all the philosophers i like it will take too long.

 

You mean an anarcho-christian....

 

Most of the anarchists doesn't consider the anarcho-christians as real anarchists, same with anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-nationalists...

I wouldn't quote Murray Rothbard next to Proudhon, for example..

 

i listed him in my post..

 

No, that's not the "ONLY THING" chomsky did.

Chomsky DEFENDED faurisson, he is a nazi negationist asshole who spread propaganda saying that the gas chambers never existed. THAT'S NOT AN OPINION, it's called LIES and DISINFORMATION. It has been PROVEN that the gas chamber exists, so fuck the peoples who use the so called freedom of speech to spread their lies and disinformation.

And even if an anarchist believe in freedom of speech for everyone even the nazis, it's fucking stupid that the nazis can count on anarchists to defend them.

Anarchists are against prison. But did you ever see an anarchist fight for the liberation of racist murderers or nazis prisonners ?? OF COURSE NOT. It's common sense. Same thing with defending the freedom of speech for a nazi. There are much more important issues.

As for anarchism not being compatible with peoples not believing in freedom of expression for their ennemies, then i remember you that :

- in spanish revolution there was no freedom of speech for franquist propaganda, there were no fascist journals and no freedom of expression for their ennemies. Both the CNT and the POUM agreed with that.

- The ukrainian makhnovtchina did not give the right to the white armies to spread their propaganda in their anarchist society. Neither did they tolerate bolchevik propaganda.

- in the zapatist communes of Chiapas in Mexico, there is no freedom of speech for the lies spread by the mexico state. Even zapata himself did not tolerate that.

- in the anarchist commune of kronsdadt, there were no freedom of speech for trotskist of stalinist propaganda, and of course they did not tolerate fascist propaganda.

- in second world war, the anarchist resistants against the nazis never tolerated nazi propaganda and they never gave freedom of speech for their ennemies.

- the Commune of Paris never tolerated government propaganda and freedom of speech.

So in conclusion, i defy you to find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of anarchism in action where lies and propaganda by their ennemies was tolerated. Doing some bullshit speech on tolerance at the extreme is so cool and maybe you think it makes you sound like a cool and true anarchist, but when the revolution comes it is a fucking different thing. Additionally, i defy you to find a single famous anarchist thinker/activist who believed in freedom of speech for the nazis (btw Chomsky is not an anarchist)

Even in an anarchist squat the nazis are not allowed.

There is a whole section on the Faurisson affair on wikipedia in french but not on the english version. You cam still get some infos about Chomsky's role in defending a nazi who deny that the holocaust and the gas chambers existed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

Me, i just do not see how defending this kind of bullshit is any way compatible with anarchism.

I love chomsky a lot, i own most of his books and respect him. But on this he was definatly wrong and stupid. A couple of years ago i was like you too, i thought we should give our ennemies freedom of speech to avoid being contradictory with our ideas. I lost a lot of time thinking that way, i lost a lot of time debating with nazis and tolerating them. Until i realized they're all the same and they will never change, they are ennemies to fight and you don't fight an enemy with tolerance. Maybe someday you will understand, too.

 

Are you kidding me ?

Because prisons are authoritarism and you can't have prisons without authority and without a repressive system including laws, police force, repression, and everything the anarchists stand against.

And because the majority of prisonners are in prison for reasons that anarchists are against, and those prisonners wouldn't be criminals in an anarchist society. The anarchists doesn't even accept the notion of criminals and criminality, neither do they accept the notion of laws.

I won't start a debate about prisons on this topic since we already had this debate on another topic.