No Platform For Fascists - Discuss (1 Viewer)

[the strange guy]

1. As anarchists, we believe that there should be a right to free speech, to organise, and to freely express political opinions; and that such rights are extremely important. These rights, however, are not inalienable and there are very limited occasions on which they should be curbed.

If rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished, who or what gives you the right to curb these 'extremely important' rights? If the answer is 'we gave ourselves that right' then please explain how this is different from a government deciding who can express political opinions.

2. There is a distinct difference between the right to free speech and the right to organise. Racist comments and ideas should be challenged and opposed, but a distinction must be drawn between this and incitement to violence/active recruitment to fascist organisations.

The right to organise is implicitly inferred by the right to free speech. One cannot speak as a group if one cannot organise. All comments and ideas should be challenged and opposed, not just racist and fascist ones. However, one cannot classify or grade comments or ideas by 'correctness' or 'suitability' unless one sees themselves as a censor.

3. Attempts by fascist groups to recruit members to fascism cannot be tolerated by an anarchist organisation. If such groups are not smashed when they are small, they will inevitably grow to a size where they will feel confident enough to attack immigrants, workers' organisations, etc.

You can smash conflicting ideas with different ideas, not just violence. You have said this youself in paragraph 6. Why does this not hold true in this paragraph? Seeing violence as a viable outlet can only lead to more violence. Once you have 'declared war' on your enemies, you will not always be the target for their violence be it out of frustration or sheer bloody mindedness. If you get to the point of attacking fascists on sight, they will take out their frustrations elsewhere. Unless you wish to start a police-style patrol group, you will not be able to protect their targets 24 hours a day.

Would you consider a group that discriminates against other human beings on the basis of nationality and religion fascist? What if they were ultra-nationalists? What if they would use direct action against their targets, resulting in death, destruction and country-wide despair? I challenge you to use your physical policy on the IRA, UVF and all other military wings from Northern Ireland. Have none of you learned that using violence as a way of protecting minority groups can escalate into situations like Northern Ireland?

4. We therefore holds that the right to organise does not extend to fascist organisers. Attempts by such organisers to exercise this 'right' will be opposed by us - physically if necessary.

Again, as a group that is defined by your refusal to acknowledge authority, how can you define yourselves as a moral authority? Who or what has given you the right to decide that those who disobey your rules must be punished - physically if necessary?

5. This does not necessarily mean that all fascists should be prevented from exercising the right to free speech. There may be occasions, for example, on which members of fascist organisations do not pose a threat as 'recruiters', and are therefore best ignored. Others, such as the revisionist historian David Irving for example, actively recruit people to fascist organisations and should therefore be denied the chance to exercise their right to organise.

Your definitions of what is permissible and what is not is vague. It's heartening to know you aren't out to censor everyone you disagree with, only some. You have already stated that small fascist groups must be smashed, but here you say that some members are 'best ignored'. Under what criteria must a person be 'smashed' and when should they be 'ignored'? When an attack takes place, it is a person who takes the brunt, not a group. Do you discriminate who must be attacked when you are 'smashing' a group, or should all members be beaten on sight by virtue of their attendence?

David Irving, as despicable as he is, should still be given the right to speak. This is because, as you said, free speech is an extremely important right. You do not have the authority to censor. Perhaps I am not as well read on Irving as you are, but for which fascist group did he recruit for? I am well aware that he is a racist, a revisionist and a Holocaust denier. Because of this, he has been declared a persona-non-grata in at least four countries. He has also been publicly humiliated, his arguments torn apart effortlessly in the court case which bankrupted him. All of this, I believe, is a more fitting punishment than beating him up.

6. Racism - while being an obnoxious set of beliefs - is not fascism. Therefore we do not oppose the right of racists to free speech. We do, however, believe that racists should be actively challenged and opposed on all occasions. The task is not to prevent racists from speaking but to defeat their arguments by putting forward a strong alternative, and by challenging the assumptions and myths on which racist arguments are based.

I am utterly confused by this paragraph. I agree that racism, the belief that human beings should be segregated by their physical attributes, and fascism, a totalitarian and nationalistic school of thought, are different. Why then do you see debate as a viable tactic with racists and also permitting them a platform, but not with fascists?

7. Racist organisations/individuals who physically attack people or who carry out attacks on hostels, B+Bs or other accommodation used by refugees and asylum seekers do not have the right to organise, to recruit for such activities. In such instances, force should be met with force; with maximum democracy used in deciding how particular organisations/individuals should be dealt with.

What is, exactly, maximum democracy? Does this maximum democracy extend only to yourselves as a group? I have no doubt that were maximum democracy used in its literal sense (ie a national referendum) the people would not choose force and violence as a way of dealing with this problem.

(PS I won't be online for a few days; please don't take my lack of response as a lack of interest in replying. Also please don't point to other links; this thread in about the WSM's no platform manifesto as it was presented on 30th of June quoted here in its entirety)

 

[Wavioli]

absolutely eloquently put. I dont know enough about specifics to argue it as in depth as you have, but basic morals are what I respond to, and I wholeheartedly agree...

edit: in short, the one thing I truly despise in someone is hypocracy.

 

[seaners]

I don't consider anti-fascist sctions to be a cause where I/we/they are going about defending a persecuted other minority or minorities. I consider them as acts of self-defence. Having been attacked and had friends attacked and known of people killed and seriously injured by groups of neo-nazis for either their political beliefs/actions or the way they dress, look or act, I take it personally. No amount of argument will convince me that it is wrong to punch nazis around the head. If it feels good do it. The assumption that street scuffles will escalate into civil war is a bit fucken far-fetched, but the argument that if left unchecked they might start showing up at punk gigs or demos etc and assaulting people isn't. Why are you so worried about defending 'rights' for a bunch of cunts anyway? I don't believe in rights as such. Rights are granted by external authorities - governments, councils, politacal groups etc. All of which I want to see an end to in an ideal world. I'll give fascists the right to free speech any day. But I'll give myself the right to assault them for threatening me.

 

[demonica]

I don't consider anti-fascist sctions to be a cause where I/we/they are going about defending a persecuted other minority or minorities. I consider them as acts of self-defence. Having been attacked and had friends attacked and known of people killed and seriously injured by groups of neo-nazis for either their political beliefs/actions or the way they dress, look or act, I take it personally. No amount of argument will convince me that it is wrong to punch nazis around the head. If it feels good do it. The assumption that street scuffles will escalate into civil war is a bit fucken far-fetched, but the argument that if left unchecked they might start showing up at punk gigs or demos etc and assaulting people isn't. Why are you so worried about defending 'rights' for a bunch of cunts anyway? I don't believe in rights as such. Rights are granted by external authorities - governments, councils, politacal groups etc. All of which I want to see an end to in an ideal world. I'll give fascists the right to free speech any day. But I'll give myself the right to assault them for threatening me.

So does that mean If i think anarchist groups may grow to be a big threat to my way of life i should go out and beat them round the head with a hoover? Or even just if i felt like it because like you said "If it feels good, do it".

 

[La La]

this is interesting, will give it a proper read soon.

-but oly aren't you supposed to be on holiday?

 

[demonica]

this is interesting, will give it a proper read soon.

-but oly aren't you supposed to be on holiday?

Hate crimes against facists don't take a holiday!

 

[ed in mouth]

i'd agree with sean regarding rights, and inspite of the wsm's use of the word i just have a few thoughts that occured whilre reading the initial post.

"please explain how this is different from a government deciding who can express political opinions."

i would have thought the difference was that the actions were at a grass roots level.

"Why then do you see debate as a viable tactic with racists and also permitting them a platform, but not with fascists? "

as dispicable as segregating society on accout of physical attributes may be, it is the oposition to the chance that a totalitarian system of governance might come out of neo nazi and fascist organisations that is primary.

"What is, exactly, maximum democracy?"

personally i would class "maximum democracy" under direct democracy, which looks like what the wsm are reffering to in the situation that the group at hand reach consensus between themselves when acting upon anther group.

 

[Janer]

Ed in mouth stop going all gaga ffs
Debate at this stage is too arty/middle class for my liking.

 

[demonica]

i'd agree with sean regarding rights, and inspite of the wsm's use of the word i just have a few thoughts that occured whilre reading the initial post.

"please explain how this is different from a government deciding who can express political opinions."

i would have thought the difference was that the actions were at a grass roots level.

So deciding who can express opinions and who can't is ok as long as a very small group of people do it?

 

[Carlow Punks!]

Debate at this stage is too arty/middle class for my liking.

What punk poser cliche statement!

Just stay out of the thread if you have no interest, its too early to descend into Eirecore idiocy, wait until page 16, thats the agreed suitable time for things to really break down to a more remedial level.
Fill the time until then by repeating "Fuck the System!" and "Punks not dead!" if you like. Thats not arty, but is often said by some of the middle class.
!bog

 

[Malarky]

If i think anarchist groups may grow to be a big threat to my way of life i should go out and beat them round the head with a hoover?

Do you see this happening? Do you really have such an inert belief in the neccesity of people telling you what to do? Have you read any anarchist literature?

 

[ed in mouth]

So deciding who can express opinions and who can't is ok as long as a very small group of people do it?

yes, that sounds about right, fitting in with micro-societal ideals of such anarchist groups as wsm?

and also, yeah, if groups, be they anarchist or fascist, were felt as a threat to ones life, culture, society, whatever-they-care-about, i would expect them to challenge them, or hit them over the head with a hoover... to be honest id prefer an entire planet entrenched in small time civil war (unlikely due to the fact that cooperation of some level is fairly essential for survival) over a situation where entire civilizations are placed under the thumb of atom bomb weilding maniacs who control the traffic of trade and can double handedly kill a million people in ten years cuz they dont like their politics.. but hey, maybe thats just me...

 

[Malarky]

but hey, maybe thats just me...

No, it's not.

 

[Denver Max]

Do you see this happening? Do you really have such an inert belief in the neccesity of people telling you what to do? Have you read any anarchist literature?

Anarchism is still people telling you what to do. In my opinion I respect anarchists for working towards what they beleive in. I dont like the world we live in but I beleive humanity is inherently fucked and always will be no matter what society becomes.

 

[brianoak]

Anarchism is still people telling you what to do. In my opinion I respect anarchists for working towards what they beleive in. I dont like the world we live in but I beleive humanity is inherently fucked and always will be no matter what society becomes.

Wow somebody makes a decent contribution.

what he said.

 

[Janer]

I guess I do too lol

 

[broken arm]

Anarchism is still people telling you what to do. In my opinion I respect anarchists for working towards what they beleive in. I dont like the world we live in but I beleive humanity is inherently fucked and always will be no matter what society becomes.

what does inherently fucked mean?

sounds sexy

 

[W.]

The society is inherently fucked arguement (which i have massive problems with) is best saved for another thread, keep it to No Platform here.

 

[Blog Bloc'er]

"If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly....It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work."
—Joseph Goebbels

The rights of freedom of speech, expression and the right to organise are not inalienable rights. Fascism as an ideology is opposed to free speech, freedom of movement and the right to live life without fear of oppression. There seems to be an opinion thats theres a philosophical conundrum with regards to anarchists, as anti-authoritarians, denying fascists the freedom to incite racism and freedom organise attacks on ethnic minorities. Chomsky talked about the idea of justified authority - the idea that authority can be justified in a limited number of cases.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged,
but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit."

The idea that anarchists should be absolute anti-authoritarians regardless of circumstances would be similar to Tolstoyan pacifism.Should the CNT have sat back let fascists take over the Spanish state on the basis that its authoritarian to use physical violence? Should anarchists let kids play with knives because to take them away woulda be an act of authority? We don't live in an abstract world, fascism doesn't exist in policy documents and internet forums, its exists with minorites getting their windows smashed or being attacked in hostels and B&Bs.

You can smash conflicting ideas with different ideas, not just violence.

No platform policies recognise this. AFA state that 95% of their work is hard politcal campaigning and that the violence end is episodal.With any other groups you can oppose their ideas by persuasion go to their meetings and air criticisms, can stand beside them when they leaflet, handing out your own flyers. you can't do this with fascists – unless you want a hurley crashing into your face. When they have been given a platform or any space to organise politically, they have used violence.

While others are busy busy pontificating about the 'right' to to incite racism and freedom organise attacks on ethnic minorities, Anarchists and people from organisations such as WSM and AFA have been out in the streets preventing the far right from gaining a foothold. The examples of Spain, Mosley, the cable street riots, the squadists and elsewhere have to be learned

If someone has an alternative for how to deal with Fascism, my ears are open

"There aren't that many fascists. If we all shoot one, they can be stopped very quickly." - George Orwell

 

[pete]

With any other groups you can oppose their ideas by persuasion go to their meetings and air criticisms, can stand beside them when they leaflet, handing out your own flyers. you can't do this with fascists – unless you want a hurley crashing into your face.

Why not? Are anarchists opposed to self defence now?