No Platform For Fascists - Discuss (3 Viewers)

[the strange guy]

WSM is an anarchist movement.

I'm glad to see nobody objects to this.

WSM is not anti-authoritarian.

I said that authoritarianism is a binary property, either you believe in it or you don't. Both you and WSM-bot have argued that authority always exists. You both gave examples for when authority is legitimate.

You also said earlier:
'.....The WSM would be situated very close to "Anti-Authoritarianism" on this spectrum, but with the proviso that we only oppose a specific form of authority - this being hierarchical authority.'
'.....I should have been clearer before in explaining that there is NOBODY in this category (Anti-authoritarian).'

Compare this to:
'.....if the WSM is an anarchist organisation, we are also, by definition, anti-authoritarian.'

All you are doing now is jumping hoops and arguing that nobody is truly anti-authoritarian while at the same time believing that you are, in fact, anti-authoritarian (according to Wikipedia). Take a position and stick to it looking for definitions on websites. You don't need a dictionary to know what's inside your heart.

When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM itself can be considered an authority.

I'm surprised you find this statement to be 'extraordinary'.

WSM-bot:
'...We simply put forward arguments, they only gain authority if a lot of people agree with them and put them into practice.
'...Anarchists, on the other hand, can only succeed in imposing their will if they persuade enough people that it is a desirable course of action.'
'...If we fail to convince enough people that this is an appropriate restriction on their rights, we would soon find ourselves incapable of imposing the restriction.'

The first statement shows that when a consensus is reached, arguments 'gain authority'. The group has now agreed that they may now 'impose their will', 'restrict (people's) rights' and 'impose restrictions'. This is a self-made authority; the WSM has become an authority.

WSM does not consider freedom of speech as a universal right enjoyed by all human beings.

You have said that the above statement is false, yet you believe that in 'limited circumstances this right can legitimately be curbed'. If you have declared the circumstances under which a human being may not speak freely you have not only become an authority, you confirm the above statement, the key word of which is 'universal'. Either all human beings may speak freely or they cannot.

WSM believes that the act of speaking freely is a privilege granted by others.

I don't understand how you are unclear about how I came to this conclusion. You said that you don't believe that rights are natural, it is granted by others:

Headmuzik:
'...the entire concept of "rights" is a human invention, there is nothing "natural" about it... If we were all born with natural "human rights" there would be no need to debate which rights we do or don't have or make attempts to have them protected, they would just exist naturally. Of course they do not, they require a social framework or legislation etc to have any value at all.'

If the right to speak freely requires legislation then it is not natural, it is a privilege granted by others.

When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM can take away this privilege from others.

It does not matter how many situations the WSM can 'impose its will' and 'restrict the rights' of other people, whether its every day or once a year. The statement holds true even if it only happens once in order to complete a WSM objective.

WSM believes that diplomacy just isn't enough to gain political goals; violence is sometimes called for.

This statement has not been contested.

WSM will use censorship and violence against fascist groups as a way of fighting for its own existence, not to protect minorities.

This statement still holds true.

WSM-bot:
'... We aren't protecting minority groups we're protecting ourselves.'


The WSM can argue over whether their use of violence and censorship is honorable but they will have a harder time proving that my statements are false. I'm aware that WSM-bot and headmuzik are not the same person, but as they are both WSM spokespersons I have quoted both of their posts as from WSM.
I tried to get away from writing huge responses as a way of holding everyone's attention, but sometimes it can't be avoided!

 

[anarchobot]

First off, I'm not in WSM.

I said that authoritarianism is a binary property

Yes, and WSM-bot addressed this on page 4. You haven't responded.

either you believe in it or you don't

What, cos it'll go away if you don't?

All you are doing now is jumping hoops and arguing that nobody is truly anti-authoritarian while at the same time believing that you are, in fact, anti-authoritarian

I really don't believe you think this is true. I think you're just being difficult.

headmuzik obviously dealt with two distinct definitions of "anti-authoritarian" in his post, dismissing one and embracing another. To quote out of context and claim he is contradicting himself is a cheap, pathetic "argument"

You don't need a dictionary to know what's inside your heart.

Is this the fucking Disney channel?!

Obviously you do need a dictionary, as you don't seem to understand a term which is central to this debate. headmuzik graciously provided you with a definition.

Unfortunately, you can't go about deciding for yourself what words mean. It kind of defeats the purpose. In order for communication to occur, words must signify the same thing to different people.

The first statement shows that when a consensus is reached, arguments 'gain authority'. The group has now agreed that they may now 'impose their will', 'restrict (people's) rights' and 'impose restrictions'. This is a self-made authority; the WSM has become an authority.

That's clearly not what was said. Again, I think you're being disingenuous here. Obviously you can read. Are your powers of comprehension really that weak, or are you just twisting what WSM-bot says because you can't think of a better argument?

S/he is making some very basic, obvious statements, ie. anarchist ideas only gain ground ("gain authority") when a large amount of people (outside the group) subscribe to them.

Anarchists, on the other hand, can only succeed in imposing their will if they persuade enough people that it is a desirable course of action.

S/he is clearly saying that anarchist ideas cannot be imposed on people, ie. people cannot be forced to become Anarchists, rather they must be persuaded that our arguments are valid.

I don't understand how you are unclear about how I came to this conclusion

Because you talked about the "act", not the "right"

The ideology of "rights" is that they must be granted. headmuzik merely points this out. He doesn't say it's a good thing. He's making an observation. The same observation which you go on to make:

If the right to speak freely requires legislation then it is not natural, it is a privilege granted by others.

Exactly. And in case you haven't noticed, rights do require legislation. Therein lies the inherent problem with the ideology of rights, which headmuzik tried to point out pages ago. Well done.

This statement still holds true

It would only hold true if the two were mutually exclusive, but they're not.

they are both WSM spokespersons

Spokepeople must be mandated by the group. I doubt they have been. Therefore they are just individuals giving their personal opinions of their group's position paper. If you read their posts you'd notice differences in their opinions. They are not spokespeople.

they will have a harder time proving that my statements are false

This is both conceited and patronising. It dismisses their previous arguments out of hand, without acknowledging their points at all. Personally, I feel they've already destroyed most of your argument.

 

[Lili Marlene]

You don't need a dictionary to know what's inside your heart.

here, can I use this line in a song?

 

[São Paulo Punk]

I had to actually google how I'm feeling today. It seems I'm clinically depressed.

 

[W.]

here, can I use this line in a song?

my chemical romance already did

 

[barndog]

no wonder reading this thread

 

[W.]

No definitions were found for what's inside your heart.

 

[Lili Marlene]

my chemical romance already did

dammit, and I googled it just in case he was quoting something I didn't know

 

[headmuzik]

"Strange_Guy" , We are not making making progress here partly because you are not responding to or engaging with the arguments we have made to you. In your last post you make sure to repeat your own allegations, which you quote in their entirety, but you apparently deem it unneccessary to fully quote any of our replies to them. Instead you post more single-line allegations as responses like "This statement has not been contested" and "This statement still holds true".

The first thing you do in your reply is to quote me out of context - making it seems like I am contradicting myself or not taking a position on Authoritarianism.
As a sidenote I will choose to disregard your suggestion that what is "In my heart" is of relevance to the discussion at hand. Go back and read my previous post and you will see that the first time I brought up "Anti-Authoritarianism" was as part of thought experiment of viewing attitudes to authority - a context where it meant something quite different to the dictionary definition from Wikipedia.

Outside of my brief usage of the word in a thought experiment, the Wikipedia definition however is standard and I believe its safe to presume that is what you meant by it when you said "The WSM is not "Anti-Authoritarian"". Let me state it once more clearly for the record : Going by the standard dictionary definition(from Wikipedia), the WSM IS Anti-Authoritarian. Since you yourself agree that the WSM is an anarchist organisation, our being "anti-authoritarian" is a conclusion derived from from the definition itself!! : The relevant wikipedia quote is "Anti-authoritarian is sometimes used as another term for anarchist".

On Freedom of speech as a universal right you had this to say:
>If you have declared the circumstances under which a human being may not >speak freely you have not only become an authority, you confirm the above >statement, the key word of which is 'universal'. Either all human beings may >speak freely or they cannot.

I see you are attempting to limit the debate to two options, but unfortunately for you, the issue is more complex than that and there are other possibilities besides your black and white view of things. I have explained in great detail the extremely limited set of circumstances which might provoke an action by the WSM whose side effect would be a restriction on freedom of speech and I will not repeat it here. Despite all your bluster you have never actually come out and clearly stated your own position - are you afraid that if you do so we might be able to pick holes in it?

You chose not to respond to the argument I had supplied wherein I challenged you to state what kind of authority the WSM represented or to whom the WSM could possibily constitute an "authority". If you continue to refuse to engage with our arguments I don't see this discussion progressing.

In conclusion, you finish with "they will have a harder time proving that my statements are false" , a classic example of an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I am happy to engage with your arguments but it is not necessary for me to REFUTE them. Our "No Platform for Fascism" position is what is being contested, and is YOU who must provide conclusive argument which goes some distance towards proving that our position is either immoral, impractical, unworkable or possesses other serious flaws which would result in our reconsidering it as an organisation. As yet, you have provided no argument that meets those goals, merely repeating various allegations about the WSM which I and other posters have revealed to be either false, mistaken, taken out of context, generalisations or confusions of definition.

 

[Blog Bloc'er]

I should have said in my first post that i'm in WSM aswell but i'm not a 'spokesperson' as wsm-bot and headmuzik have been referred to. i'm here in a personal capacity.

I said that authoritarianism is a binary property, either you believe in it or you don't

As has been said before Authority (and life) is not as simple as IO computer info. There are many different forms of authority from your bogstandard online dictionarys to sociologists like Max Weber along with the idea of 'authority to' and 'authority over', in a limited number of instances authority can be justified (and should be fully justified by those using it). I'm against authority (generally) hence i call myself an anti-authoritarian. I'm also anti-statist but I wouldn't call for the dole to be scrapped and healthcare to be privatised tomorrow because I'm opposed to the state, things are not that binary/ black and white.

The group has now agreed that they may now 'impose their will', 'restrict (people's) rights'

The basis of a 'no platform' policy is to protect peoples rights, not to restrict them. Its a utilitarian John Stuart Mill harm principle kind of argument that the rights of the many to be free from persecution, physical attack etc outweighs the rights of a minority of nutters to organise.

your main argument seems to be thats its hypocritical for WSM to have a 'no platform' policy on the basis that we believe that there are cases where authority has to be used, that all authority has to be justifed and against our belief in what authority is. if thats the case is your argument against a 'no platform' policy genrally or WSMs use of one?

Would you have the same problem with the SWP having a similar policy or would it be acceptable because they fully believe in authority? Do you accept the right of the state to curb racists incitement to hatred etc or would you see that as an illegitimate form act of authority/censorship?

is your alternative that we leaflet people who attack hostels and B&Bs?

 

[W.]

This thread was great. I'm doing an educational at my wsm branch meeting tonight on our No Platform policy if anybody is interested pm me.

 

[bohs punks]

heavy stuff - just read through for first time.

where does all the "wsm peopel speaking in their own capacity" fit in with the wsm being a platformist group whereby a common position is agreed then put forward by platformist groupsa - cant figure this out at all - sure you could all argue your own individual positons anytime you like and just say its our individual position not a wsm one- why bother being in the group if you all argue as individuals?!

 

[W.]

THe platform is just a common ground based on ideological unity, tactical unity, collective action and discipline, and federalism.

It doesn't mean we're the borg and all think the same or aim to. We have a position on No Platform which was collectively decided, I don't like some aspects of it and will argue against them tonight. I guess when people argue as individuals they're just saying that they're not speaking on behalf of the entire wsm without consulting the others.

 

[seaners]

WARNING - POLITICAL NERD ALERT!!!
The platform referred to is not a general idea of having an organisation and a set of principles but a specific document - the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Proposed) by Makhno, Arshinov, Mett, Valevsky and Linsky, written in 1926 by a group of exiles from Russia who had lost the civil war against the Bolsheviks and were trying to figure out ways to stop it from happening again in the future. Not necessarily a bad idea, but their proposal was the formation of a monolithic General Union of Anarchists, a centralized member based organization to try and out-Bolshevikize the Bolsheviks. It demands that members adhere to the discipline of the organizationa and not think or act for themselves, thus gaining a centralized unity of ideas and tactics.
"The practice of operating on one’s individual responsibility must be strictly condemned and rejected within the ranks of the anarchist movement."
As opposed to the far more succesful FAI (Federation of Iberian Anarchists) in Spain in the 30's which was organized from the bottom up, by already existing collectives of friends, neighbours, co-workers etc. forming a federation of free association, the General Union of Anarchists idea would require that all anarchists work towards the building of the GUA and undertake no revolutionary action not authorized by the organisation, ie the creation of a super-structure from the inside outwards (not quite from the top downwards if you get what I'm saying).
"The platform’s task is to assemble all of the healthy elements of the anarchist movement into a single active and continually operating organization, the General Union of Anarchists. All of anarchism's active militants must direct their resources into the creation of this organization."
Imho the platform was written by a group of disillusioned bitter exiles who abandoned all their anarchist principles in an attempt to formulate a revenge on the commies that killed their dreams. It was immediately rejected by almost all the anarchist luminaries of the time including Malatesta, Berkman, Voline and Nettlau among others.
The problem is that whenever i try to have this conversation with people who identify themselves as platformists they repeatedly claim that it isn't like that, that everyone thinks for themselves, has their own opinions on things and position papers and the like are just general ideas on stuff and not party policies or whatever. If that is the case, which i would expect from any people identifying themselves as anarchists, i don't understand the idea behind calling yourself or your group Platformist. The whole document would seem to run counter to any claims of free-thinking, free-acting individuals, which is surely the basis for all anarchist ideas? Is it simply a case that you are not actually basing your ideas on this document, but just using the idea behind it in a totally different way to the authors? Why would you want to identify yourself with a set of ideas that you have fundamental disagreements with? If that is the case, why bother identifying yourself as a platformist at all?

 

[u:m]

mother of god

 

[Space]

mother of god

Good point!!

 

[seaners]

Sorry, I don't know what came over me there. It just sort of slipped out. I won't let it happen again

 

[nooleen]

"The practice of operating on one’s individual responsibility must be strictly condemned and rejected within the ranks of the anarchist movement."

haha.

 

[wageslave]

Platformism actually started out as an insult afaik. The most common use of it among people who adopt the label is to differenciate ourselves from some of the headbangers who also call themselves anarchist. Most platformists would also describe themselves as class struggle anarchists or as anarchist communists (I'm less fond of the second label for obvious reasons).

I'm not aware of any organisation which thinks the Platform document is some sort of bible or who doesn't find serious fault with it.

 

[nooleen]

The most common use of it among people who adopt the label is to differenciate ourselves from some of the headbangers who also call themselves anarchist. Most platformists would also describe themselves as class struggle anarchists or as anarchist communists (I'm less fond of the second label for obvious reasons).

"I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but a two-thirds majority..."
"Shut up, will you! Shut up!"
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you see him repressing me then, eh? That's what I've been on about..."