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. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    0

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    If i could deny your freedom of speech id come over there and smack your lips off your face. This thread is 13 (now 14 because i have to teach you a lesson) pages long, and isnt even about the damn topic.So quick being a moron and go outside for once in your miserable life.
     
  2. Protspecd

    ProtspecdExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    466

    0

    0

    Mar 3, 2010
     
    Relax man, was just a joke, far out. If you are going to insult me for being a moron, I think you will find it is quit, not quick. If you are the one taking jokes that seriously, maybe I am not the one who has a miserable life. Lighten up.
     
  3. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,123

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Sorry for the lateness of reply. My statement was in direct response to the use of universal human rights rhetoric in order to justify yr (and others') conception of 'freedom of speech'.

    I find the concept of 'universal' human rights to be deeply problematic, not only because it is Liberal politics (though that no doubt plays a part), I shall attempt to explain why 'human rights' are insufficient to create an anarchist society.

    Firstly, it would be worth noting the historical and political context under which the concept of 'universal human rights' developed. Human rights discourse came to the fore during the 'enlightenment' period, thus during the economic switch from feudal agrarian society to Capitalism. Thus Liberalism (of which human rights is an central tenet) was the politics of the newly wealthy and powerful bourgeoisie. It follows that Liberalism was reflective of their interests, thus it was a 'human right' to own property. And through a selective implementation of who was able to claim 'human rights' was dependent on social status. It is hardly suprising that slavery, colonisation, oppression of women, etc, were allowed under Liberalism. It is not even the case that this was going on hundreds of years ago. In Australia, where i live, our Indigenous peoples were not counted as human beings until 1967. This is well after the creation of the United Nations, and the Universal declaration of Human Rights (of which Australia was a signatory).

    Now, you may argue that this is not a problem of 'human rights', rather of their implementation. Whilst this is true to a degree, I would tend to argue that too often 'human rights' translates to ruling class rights in its application. Further, the moral and ethical underpinning of bourgeois society is one to be dispensed with asap.

    A further complicating factor is of who maintains human rights? Documents such as the Declaration of universal human rights are designed specifically to be implemented from the top down. It requires the State to uphold our rights. Anarchism is the acknowledgment that the State is neither capable nor interested in doing so, is rather the reflection and protector of ruling class interests. We create social freedom from below, and horizontally. If we want a free and open society, we must create it ourselves. Human rights are imposed upon us, we do not take part in forming them within our own communities, nor are we responsible for ensuring them. This is fundamentally counter to the interests of anarchism.

    Further, the concept of 'Universal Human Rights' is euro-centric arrogance at its worst. Whilst politics may not be merely Superstructural (in the Orthodox Marxist sense), there is no doubt that the hegemony of Capitalist economics has a mutual reinforcing relationship with the hegemonic power of Liberalist politics. There are countless examples of how 'human rights' have acted to impede social freedom, self-determination and cultural identity. In my discussions with an Indigenous elder, he outlined how the banning of customary law (on the grounds of 'human rights' by the State) has been harmful to his community. Instead of immediate punishment for crimes, undertaken by the community, followed by the immediate reintergration of the criminal into his/her community, they now have the criminal locked up in isolation for numerous years, leading to the lifelong suffering of alienation and dislocation (outside of the numerous Indigenous deaths in custody and incredibly high incarceration rate). We, the colonisers, have written the laws and yet pretend they are fucking universal in nature?

    Human rights are often contradictory, and hence become meaningless. There is the obvious split between 'positive' and 'negative' rights. the 'right to subsistence' (postive) is in direct conflict to the 'right to property' (negative). Further, and i guess more on topic, is the conflict between the 'right to free speech' and the 'right to be free from persecution due to race, religion or politics'. We thus find the puzzling maths-like equations wafting out of the mouths of the University intelligentsia, discussing the correct way to prioritize 'human rights' that are in conflict. The amount of shit written on how to compare, contrast and evaluate the hierarchy of rights is seriously mind-blowing.

    i feel the reliance on a 'human rights' argument within this thread is not anarchist politics, rather an extreme variant of Liberal reformism. 'Human rights' is fundamentally the politics of the bourgeoisie, thus it is not the fact that correct policing of our rights is not currently occurring, rather than 'human rights' discourse in incapable and uninterested in allowing us to live freely. We can not make Capitalism humane, we must dispense with it, and this would include the political discourses that maintain it. It would be worth me noting, I think, another example. In the Northern Territory of Australia, the government decided to implement renewed attacks on Indigenous communities, this included (though not limited to) the deployment of military personnel into small remote communities and welfare-quarantining (50% of Indigenous ppl's dole is now given out on a 'Basics Card', which can only be spend at certain stores on certain items). Such draconian measures contravened the UN's Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), as such, the Australian Government suspended the Act. Human Rights campaigners have since that time been campaigning for the reinstatement of the RDA, which it now appears will be successful (the RDA will be reintroduced shortly). Now, this will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on those currently affected by welfare quarantining, because the Government has announced that welfare quarantining will be rolled out nation-wide (to us whiteys too!) shortly. Hence, human rights discourse has maintained that you can't discriminate against ppl due to race, but you can due to class. Attacks on us as a class are just par for course, and are not lessened by the best of intentions of fucking overpaid Human Rights lawyers.

    We must, as a class (or a network of multiple oppressed classes if you prefer), organise to overthrow Capitalism and the State. We must also create the conditions of social freedom we wish to see in the world, together. It is only through free and open interactions within our communities and workplaces that we can even begin to work towards establishing anything that resembles a legitimate reflection of our social and political rights.

    BTW, Fascism, a cult of violence, directly undermines any prefigurative structures of social freedom we are working to maintain and build on. It must be smashed at all costs.
     
  4. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    Round and round... but let's just set the record straight a little... honestly I don't know why I bother...

    If you go back to the start of this thread you will see that the first person to start insulting anyone on page 2 is Ungovernable who calls NGNM85 an idiot, dumb, stupid etc - go on back and have a read, it's all there. Did NGNM85 deserve such a reply when all he was doing was asking a question?

    The second insults are again aimed at the same person who continues to try and be civil.

    Poster Xero enters a post with a QUESTION on page 2 - he is then replied and called an idiot by Ungovernable for no justifiable reason.

    So 2 posters without direct provocation who disagree or ask questions are treated with utter contempt. Why?

    I read your posts Ungovernable and thought you had some good ideas and like I said I probably agree with you (mostly) but I then asked a question about the quote at the end of your post. It was just a QUESTION because you are saying we should ban EVERYTHING connected to Nazis speech so it is IRONIC that you have a quotation by Adolf Hitler? If you read my post on page 3 you'll see I asked a QUESTION. I didn't call Ungovernable ANY names and I asked a fair question.

    Insults against NGNM85 continue despite his attempts to be civil. For the record I don't especially agree with him on this issue, although certain circumstances lead me to question my stances continually which I raise as issues of debate, and I often disagree with him on several other issues but the fact remains that he, like myself, sees little point in trying to debate with someone who resorts to childish name-calling anytime somebody disagrees with him.

    NGNM85 does not call Ungovernable any names or take a condescending attitude. In anybody's book this isn't really justifiable and it is REACTIONARY. I make this point on page 4. Reading back over the thread I can't see any justification for this sort of treatment.

    In "The Ecology of Freedom" Murray Bookchin discusses the hierarchy of idea, in which he suggests that people with loud voices who intimidate other people, bully them, call them names and be condescending towards them for no good reason, which is the case in this thread, are creating a hierarchy of ideas. All forms of social and political hierarchy and forms of dominance he suggests are against the central tenets of anarchist thought and vision. This is in fact a form of fascism.

    I do not at any point call Ungovernable a fascist or a fake anarchist as you can see if you read back through the thread. I question his motives and I do so in a civil manner. I think his reactionary holier than thou approach could possibly be construed as 'fascist' in the broader sense of the term but this is certainly and obviously not the same as calling him a fascist.
    You can read the reactionary responses of course, the usual bile and hatred spat out, the usual patronising tone. Note how it is Ungovernable who believes I have called him a Nazi. As you can see by reading my posts this is not the case.

    Despite this I try to make my point a little clearer. As I said I largely agree with not giving fascists an inch but I question the idea for a number of reasons, the main one being they already have freedom of speech whether we like it or not so we need to work on that level. Simply saying we should ban them is not a solution, it's just a statement that means little. We need to be prepared to fight accordingly.

    I would answer Ungovernable's points if he had a bit of respect. If someone approached me in the street and took that attitude with me I would either walk away or floor them. You don't talk to people who throw endless insults at you and misinterpret what you have said to justify their ignorance. Note how Ungovernable is accusing me of name-calling - all I did like the other posters on this board was ask questions - suddenly we're nazi-lovers, idiots, fuckwits etc - feel free to read back and pull out any places where I directly call Ungovernable a fake anarchist or a fascist for example. You won't find it. All you'll see are questions offered in a reasonable manner.

    Note what poster Lundimae says at this point: I agree with you Ungovernable but I really hate how you start insulting people. I think this is really what everyone is trying nto do - let's cut the insults and have a debate, sounds reasonable.

    Again I try to be clear and to offer my point (page 4 again). I point out that I'm moreorless in agreement with Ungovernable AGAIN but I'm asking questions, like I ask questions about everything, because that's how you debate and learn about things. Throwing personal insults is not debate. I ask for a bit of respect because what's the point otherwise.
    You can read the replies, usual stuff.

    I don't think anybody in the thread is a fascist sympathizer and I think it is counterproductive on an anarchist site to accuse people of being so without a shred of evidence. I think several posters have tried to show that Ungovernable's attitude wasn't especially anarchistic. This is not the same as saying he is a fake anarchist. Those are HIS words. Feel free to read back.
    Poster punkmar77 raises some good points about what happens when you carry anti-fascism too far.

    Thread has gone to the dogs at this point where it seems a lot of people are jumping in an out and taking sides without reading back over the whole thread (a chore I know).
    You can see other posters on this thread who clearly disagree but they are having a debate about it without recourse to the playground mentality.

    Poster Spider makes some good contributions (page 5), and also points out Ungovernable's misinterpretations of other peoples posts. (Only to be called an idiot - is there a pattern here?). To be fair to Ungovernable English is not his first language so he may misinterpret what some people are saying but it's easy to ask someone to clarify an issue rather than calling them a fucking idiot, is it not?
    Some good points by anarchofem on page 6 - yet another poster who sees the confusion going on and asks for some clarity on the insults thrown out by Ungovernable who as you can see still insists he's been called an authoritarian, fascist etc and is merely defending himself. Read back over the thread and you'll see this happening.

    Meanwhile, Ungovernable demands people answer his questions. Why on earth would they want to when they'll only to be treated to more of the same?
    On and on and on it goes, round and round getting nowhere.

    I write, on page 11 I think, a light-hearted apology because it's quite clear we're getting anywhere. All I am asking is that we give up this invented battle and discuss the topic without reducing it to farce. Yes it is a bit cheeky but frankly it's embarrassing. Incidentally I don't actually mention Ungovernable's name here.

    Ungovernable suggests that he loses his patience when he gets insulted, hmmm.

    Poster Spider has tried to put things in context on Page 12.

    Ungovernable wonders why I'm not answering his questions. Funny that.

    On Page 13 I try to put into context what I was saying before and I offer some examples which suggest to me that things are not clear cut on this topic. I'm frankly fed up at this point and finally I suggest to Ungovernable I will debate with him if he uses a bit of respect. Usual charming reply and of course by this point on other threads which have no relevance to this one the sniping has begun which is rather sad.

    Ungovernable I will debate with you on any issue if you are prepared to acknowledge that I am a human being. I will try to do the same for you. I think you've misunderstood me and others and we may have misunderstood you too. Let's move on.

    Apologies for the long winded post. I just wanted to put all of this in context and anyone can read back through the whole thread to see for themselves. I won't pass any other comments on this post but I would hope that on other threads there might be a bit more tolerance otherwise we can watch our masters laugh at us and our wonderful display of anarchist unity.

    "Three-fourths of philosophy & literature is the talk of people trying to convince themselves that they really like the cage they were tricked into entering."
    — Gary Snyder
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Rallying isn't action. Rallying is protesting. Attacking the nazis is doing something and fighting against them.

    Fighting means confrontation, not only protests.

    No i'm not failing. YOU are failing because in 13 pages you were not able to back up your ideas with ONE SINGLE historical example or anarchist philosopher. You are alone in your world, and all revolutions in the history were opposed to your ideas.

    Same for you, you are insulting me, calling me a fascist and an authoritarian, a stalinist, etc...

    And don't tell me i think about what you are saying. I ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT YOU BROUGHT UP. Unlike you. You always ignore my arguments, you refuse to answer me, and you act like a fascist like NGNM85 is doing.

    Between censorship and ignoring others ideas, i don't see a big difference. Like a famous french anarchist said, "shut up", and "keep talking i don't care", is pretty much the same thing.

    and i'm simply putting the fact that all anarchists in the history acted that way, so all the anarchist revolutions were likened to fascism ;)

    So all examples of anarchism in the history are incompatible with your ideas, you have no historical examples to back up your thoughts on. You ain't going to convice anybody as long as you can't prove your ideas CAN be realised in real life.

    Yes you are a nazi hugger.

    not only you support inaction but you also fight against the ones who would confront the nazis to silence them

    Nobody ever talked about imprisonning peoples, we repeated it 1 million time.





    Totally off topic. Exploited thread has nothing to do in this discussion

    I said you SOUND like a feminist fascist

    I thought you were capable of making the difference between someone saying your ideas are LIKE fascism and someone who IS fascist ??? ;)

    Shut up, i don't support sexist. WHAT PART OF "I DIDN'T KNOW" YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ??

    lol but you don't even make the difference when i say you SOUND like a feminist fascist, so why should i makethe difference when you say i use sexist insults ?




    back2front, answer my questions instead of making stalinist trials. or shut up.



    Yes, we should close the thread now. Anyway NGNM85 and the other idiots are speechless and they don't know what to answer
     
  6. Spider

    SpiderExperienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
     
  7. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    Figure 1
    Figure 2

    Figure 3

    Hypocrisy levels at maximum!!!! Does not compute!!! System failure!!! System failure!!!
     
  8. Spider

    SpiderExperienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    much more eloquently put. I'm not nerdy enough to figure out proper quoting procedure/code etc.
     
  9. ozf

    ozfMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Jan 31, 2010
     

    one of his best quotes =]
     
  10. ozf

    ozfMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    To those speaking about Nietzsche....

    does anyone else fine Beyond Good and Evil a great book, hard read, but still awesome??
    and very interesting =]
    too bad his sister corrupted his works :'(



    and to everyone.....


    YOU JUST LOST THE GAME :D
     
  11. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    Oh you bastard......
     
  12. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada

    Obviously you didn't get the point i was trying to bring up.

    I don't believe that there is a difference between someone who says i SOUND or ACT LIKE a fascist and someone who insult me of being a fascist.

    But since you think there is a difference (a good tactic to avoid assuming your insults) then i'm just playing your game.

    If you think saying someone SOUND like a fascist isn't insulting someone, then don't come whine on me because i do the same. Or THAT would be real hypocrisy.
     
  13. ozf

    ozfMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Jan 31, 2010
     

    mwahahahahahahaha :D
     
  14. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I'm not keeping attendance, it doesn't bother me. Although, in light of your accusation it seems a bit late to start being gentlemanly. However…

    To broadly articulate the area of disagreement, what you’re saying sounds a lot like “Jewish physics.” The problem is no power has ever really consistently upheld human rights. Including the US, and even the generally more progressive western European countries. It’s likely this is symptomatic of the way these institutions function, it’s simply anathema. The extent to which they do protect human rights is generally to the extent the people have held them to it. You don’t have to endorse capitalism (Or, rather, what’s being called capitalism.) or nation states to agree with these ideals. (In fact it’d be almost impossible.) Any genuine Anarchist would agree with the notion, in the words of the Universal Declaration, Article 25; "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to secure that in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood."


    Violence is an essential component of fascism. However, that’s not what’s being suggested. What’s being suggested is the use of force/violence against people who haven’t committed violence. Moreover, the criteria is much broader, not just including neo-fascists, but also holocaust deniers, anyone espousing religion, and probably a number of other ideas. Why this is objectionable has been thoroughly documented.
     
  15. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,123

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    So yr basically acussing me of being a Fascist now, due to yr perception that I subscribe to some post-modern version of German Physics? Get fucked.
     
  16. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    hahahaha you keep repeating this over and over again

    i'll quote your own words: THIS IS IRREVELENT



    Facts are still and will always be that not giving free speech to the fascists is a major consensus between anarchists, and facts are that you cannot find a single example of anarchism in action where free speech was given to the ennemies of the revolution. So calling fascists the peoplkes who share this point of view is totally stupid. When you realize that all examples of anarchism were acting exactly the same way, then maybe it's the time to realize that YOU are wrong. The BIG MAJORITY of the anarchists can be wrong, no, YOU are. You are alone in your immaginary hippy world and you can't backup your thoughts with any anarchist philosophers or any example of anarchist insurrection/revolution.

    i am as much fascist and authoritarian than all the revolutions in the history and i am as much fascist as all anarchist philosophers. So since you call me a fake anarchist, then all those revolutions and all those philosophers are also fake anarchists.
     
  17. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    This is so tedious.... When the Nazi party came to power they ransacked the arts and sciences removing anything that they found ideologically unacceptable, or that was the product of non-Aryans. Several prominant physicists had been Jews, (Including Albert Einstein.) and the Nazi party tried to do away with what they called "Jewish physics." Obviously, a bogus agenda. I was essentially echoing a Chomsky quote; "The entire idea of 'white male science' reminds me of 'Jewish physics,'" he writes. "When I read a scientific paper I can't tell whether the author is white or male." The point is there is no such thing as "Jewish physics", just as there is no "white male science" or "liberal human rights." My point was simply that like "Jewish physics" you're illogically, and incorrectly conflating two unrelated things.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,296

    49

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Stupid comparaison. Irrevelent, like you would say.

    Yes there is a capitalist language that we would need to get rid of in an anarchist society. The concept of criminality, the concept of deviance, the concept of laws and legality, the political correct language (except for a few points of course), etc etc etc...
     
  19. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,123

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    What the fuck are you talking about, you make absolutely no sense.
    conflating what two unrelated things?

    Moreover, quotes you've taken from wikipedia hardly maketh one an expert on a topic.

    Further, the Chomsky quote you have chosen completely misses the point (both by Chomsky and by yr use of it). It is not a matter of wom*n or people of colour being unable to produce great works of scientific worth (or in any field for that matter), but rather that socio-economic circumstances do impact on access to the lofty heights of the University intelligentsia. Further, Capitalism imposes a framework on 'serious' intellectual debate (I suggest you re-read Chomsky & Herman's Manufacturing Consent, considering yr constant use of Chomsky quotes, to understand how 'framing' works), it is not a coincidence that most uni professors, politicians, business leaders, etc, are white, male and from privileged backgrounds.
     
  20. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    First of all, that quote didn't come from Wikipedia, it came from a piece in the Wall Street Journal a few years back. I couldn't find the original source at that moment and I couldn't remember it word for word. The entire paragraph is as follows;
    "In fact, the entire idea of "white male science" reminds me, I'm afraid, of "Jewish physics." Perhaps it is another inadequacy of mine, but when I read a scientific paper, I can't tell whether the author is white or is male. The same is true of discussion of work in class, the office, or somewhere else. I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I work would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race." I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction."

    Here's the link, I think you should check it out.
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1995----02.htm

    He was criticizing postmodernist assertions that the scientific method is inherently racist or sexist. Niether he, nor the people he's criticizing are talking about scientific institutions, they are both talking about the science itself. He compares this with the Nazi concept of "Jewish physics", which is equally bogus. I was saying, like these postmodernist critiques, like "Jewish physics", you're concept of "liberal human rights" is conflating two unrelated things. That human rights are no more or less inherently capitalist or authoritarian, than physics is Jewish.

    Incidentally, I have read "Manufacturing Consent", and I also have the documentary.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - favorite anarchistic philosopherForumDate
Favorite splits?Music, punk scene & subculturesApr 11, 2014
What are your bands Brazilian anarcho punk favorites?General DiscussionMay 11, 2013
Favorite Motorcharged bands?Music, punk scene & subculturesMay 10, 2012
Favorite anarchist icon?Anarchism and radical activismApr 15, 2012
Favorite anarchist quoteAnarchism and radical activismDec 8, 2010