Carlow Punks!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,650
pete said:Why not? Are anarchists opposed to self defence now?
having a fist fight tends to get in the way of handing out flyers, if you don't believe me, try it out...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
pete said:Why not? Are anarchists opposed to self defence now?
It is different because a government imposes its opinion through ordering people to carry it out. 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.the strange guy said: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.
No rights are absolute. My right to swing my fists wherever the hell I like ends where your nose begins. Similarly nobody really believes that the right to organise or the right to free speech is absolute. Anybody who shouts fire in a packed cinema takes away my children's right not to be trampled to death. Anybody who organises a ring of paedophile murderers in my area seriously threatens my children's right not to be abused and murdered.the strange guy said: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.
We spend a lot of time and energy putting forward anti-racist and anti-fascist ideas. We have produced articles, pamphlets, posters, stickers and distributed them as much as we can. We have argued in debates, organised public meetings, handed out leaflets, held stalls in town. Much more than you have, so you are in a poor position to criticise us on that one. However, we are not pacifists and we also think that people should have a right to defend themselves when they face bullies. Fascism is bullying transformed into a political movement. We also spend time putting forward the idea that people should stand up to bullies and since we do not want to be hypocrites, we try to put the principle into action ourselves.the strange guy said: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.
No. No and No.the strange guy said: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?
None of the groups in Northern Ireland are fascists (thank christ). If they were we would do what we could to oppose them although since they are much bigger and stronger than us we would probably end up dead. As it is, since they are not fascist, we have no reason to do anything other than argue against their ideas - which we do frequently.the strange guy said: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?
We don't define ourselves as a moral authority. We simply put forward arguments, they only gain authoity if a lot of people agree with them and put them into practice. That's simply persuasion and it is how humanity develops ideas.the strange guy said: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?
We are generally extremely slow to call somebody a fascist and only do so when we have irrefutable evidence. We further only consider action if we think that there is a serious chance that they might be able to organise something around themselves. In the last decade, the only people that we have supported action against are David Irving, Justin Barrett and the Celtic Wolves. Nutters like REO or Ni Chonaill are best ignored. The decision about what type of approach to take is purely a strategic one - what will be the most effective - although we generally err on the side of minimsing the amount of force.the strange guy said: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?
Irving has given "keynote" speeches at various "Aryan" organisations in the United States and in Europe. He has openly decleared that he sees his meetings as opportunities to bring together like minded people and that he sees himself as more of an activist than a historian (which was pretty fundamentally proven in court).the strange guy said: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.
Because we are 100% sure that fascists will kill us as soon as they get the chance. Therefore, while debating with them is still useful, stopping them from getting into a position to kill us is more pressing.the strange guy said: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?
"Maximum democracy", I think, conveys the concept that rights should only be limited when we can be fairly certain that they will conflict with the fundamental rights of others.the strange guy said: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.
tom. said:remember on that other thread, where i said that it'd be in the interests of the anarcho types to explain themselves rationally and persuasively? this is the shit i was talking about. might not agree with all of it, but fair dues, wsm-bot. thanks.
Punching people around the head because they have opposing ideas isn't wrong because it feels good? We all know people who have been attacked or badly injured by people because of their political beliefs and/or the way they look. These acts aren't just commited by fascists, but by townies and police, jocks and other randomers. They don't all fall under a fascist category, but does that give us the right to attack them based on past experience?seaners said:No amount of argument will convince me that it is wrong to punch nazis around the head. If it feels good do it.
I disagree. I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of organisation and 'rights' in general are natural, not granted. The only thing that can be 'granted' (or should I say enforced) is restriction. There does not exist an entity which permits me the right to speak my mind, only to take that right away. Deciding who can and who cannot speak freely is unnatural. Therefore if freedom of speech is not a natural and effortless act it becomes an act which is monitored and enforced; this makes it un-anarchistic.seaners said:I don't believe in rights as such. Rights are granted by external authorities - governments, councils, politacal groups etc
It does not matter what name you decide to label censorship, be it from the Taoiseach to an anarchist group, the top level to the bottom level. The fact that you decide to name this instance 'grass roots' as opposed to, say, 'political policy' is immaterial. It is still a group making decisions for what others can hear or read. I agree that a group of people who believe they are in authority can make a joint decision to prevent others expressing opinions; I do not understand how anarchists can do this unless they see themselves as some kind of authority, whether they see it that way or not. Making decisions for how other people should act while simultaneously believing that nobody can make decisions for how they themselves should act cannot be possible.ed in mouth said:i would have thought the difference (between an anarchist group and a government deciding who can express political opinions) was that the actions were at a grass roots level.
In my mind, full democracy involves 'the people', as in the entire population, not a relatively small group of like-minded individuals, but everyone. 'Maximum democracy' would mean the opinions of all members of the public, not one person excluded, being taken into account. 'Direct democracy' would mean the will of the entire population being acted out. I would absolutely not consider maximum democracy to mean 'deciding what should be done with opposing organisations after they have been met with force' as described in the WSM's manifesto. I think there is not only a quantitative but also a qualitative difference between democracy and a group decision. I would classify WSM's consensus as a group decision.ed in mouth said: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.
I'd like to clarify that, although I do not consider myself a typical anarchist, I am not anti-anarchist. I am genuinely curious about 'No Platform' policies and how they work cohesively within an anarchist framework.Denver Max said:In my opinion I respect anarchists for working towards what they beleive in.
Should the Workers Solidarity Movement declare themselves to be semi-authoritarian, my questions will be answered and the subject closed. However, authoritarianism is a binary property, you either believe there should be some form of authority or you do not; there is no middle ground.Blog Bloc'er said:The idea that anarchists should be absolute anti-authoritarians regardless of circumstances would be similar to Tolstoyan pacifism.
Let's not get bogged down with semantics again. Neither being a good friend nor being a responsible parent means one is an authority, nor does it infer that one necessarily believes in authority.Blog Bloc'er said:Should anarchists let kids play with knives because to take them away woulda be an act of authority?
Fascism exists in the minds of human beings. If you do not believe that you can counter their beliefs and challenge their stance using only your mind then you are likening them to neanderthals, which is prejudiced in itself. Relying on physical might is what people do when they worry their mind isn't good enough.Blog Bloc'er said: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.
As pointed out in an earlier post, I have found zero material on AFA's website or magazine which would effectively counter a racist's beliefs. What you call 'political campaigning' I would call 'searching for supporters and money to maintain the website and magazine'. However, I admit that I could be wrong. If you can point me in the direction of AFA's anti-facist material aimed at countering facist beliefs with strong arguments, please do so.Blog Bloc'er said:AFA state that 95% of their work is hard politcal campaigning and that the violence end is episodal.
I understand how these methods of opposition are physical without being violent, but I would still categorise these acts as censorship.headmuzik said:fascists organisers distributing leaflets can be physically deprived of those leaflets and heckled until they go on their way, organisers who try to call a meeting can be shouted down or drowned out with noise from people banging on tables/pots/pans or whatever else...
You haven't answered the question. If censorship can only be imposed by an authority, how can anarchists, a clear minority, censor?WSM-bot said: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.
WSM-bot said:No rights are absolute... Similarly nobody really believes that the right to organise or the right to free speech is absolute.I disagree; rights are absolute. All human beings enjoy the same rights, one of which is the freedom to speak their minds. If you do not agree to this then you are in a position where you are categorising humans by virtue of what they can and cannot say. If you are a true anarchist then it is impossible for you to bestow rights upon people, given that these are birthrights and not gifts awarded by you.
I think this is a very important point. Please explain how this pre-emptive policy against fascists is qualitatively different from the American government's policy against 'enemy combatants'.WSM-bot said:The WSM position on fascists springs from the idea that history shows that fascists are 100% likely to kill anarchsit activists as soon as they get the chance. Therefore we will defend our right to life by doing whatever we can to prevent them from getting into a position where they can kill us.
I have trouble understanding how you find an armed, violent, ultra-nationalist group bent with plans of segregating this country's population by religion less of a threat than David Irving.WSM-bot said:As it is, since they (IRA, UVF) are not fascist, we have no reason to do anything other than argue against their ideas - which we do frequently.
When you say a lot of people, how many do you mean? 10? 200? 1,000? More? How can you decide on which arguments become policy when there is little or no major opposition to them within your small group?WSM-bot said:We don't define ourselves as a moral authority. We simply put forward arguments, they only gain authoity if a lot of people agree with them and put them into practice.
Arguments are not an authority, only its enforcers. Do you see yourselves as enforcers of ideas?
This is the case right now in most countries in the west. The freedom of a threatening individual is limited by their incarceration after being found guilty in court. The difference between your ideology and the present one is that yours is more physical, more barbaric and without the consent of the general public. As mentioned before, if full democracy (of the population, not your small group) was in place with regards to the treatment of those who threaten the rights of others, I am confident that using violence would not be the vote winner.WSM-bot said:society should limit the freedom of the individual only in those cases where her rights remove rights from others.
the strange guy said:Should the Workers Solidarity Movement declare themselves to be semi-authoritarian, my questions will be answered and the subject closed. However, authoritarianism is a binary property, you either believe there should be some form of authority or you do not; there is no middle ground.
Neither being a good friend nor being a responsible parent means one is an authority, nor does it infer that one necessarily believes in authority.
Fascism exists in the minds of human beings. If you do not believe that you can counter their beliefs and challenge their stance using only your mind then you are likening them to neanderthals, which is prejudiced in itself. Relying on physical might is what people do when they worry their mind isn't good enough.
As pointed out in an earlier post, I have found zero material on AFA's website or magazine which would effectively counter a racist's beliefs. What you call 'political campaigning' I would call 'searching for supporters and money to maintain the website and magazine'. However, I admit that I could be wrong. If you can point me in the direction of AFA's anti-facist material aimed at countering facist beliefs with strong arguments, please do so.
I disagree; rights are absolute. All human beings enjoy the same rights, one of which is the freedom to speak their minds. If you do not agree to this then you are in a position where you are categorising humans by virtue of what they can and cannot say. If you are a true anarchist then it is impossible for you to bestow rights upon people, given that these are birthrights and not gifts awarded by you.
That's just silly. By turning it into a binary property you actually turn it into a unary property (since nobody could possibly believe that nobody should have the authority to take a gun away from a psychopath). Any unary property is meaningless and useless.the strange guy said:Should the Workers Solidarity Movement declare themselves to be semi-authoritarian, my questions will be answered and the subject closed. However, authoritarianism is a binary property, you either believe there should be some form of authority or you do not; there is no middle ground.
Of course it does, unless you are using a unique meaning of the concept "authority".the strange guy said:Let's not get bogged down with semantics again. Neither being a good friend nor being a responsible parent means one is an authority, nor does it infer that one necessarily believes in authority.
That's just silly. Relying on physical might is simply necessary sometimes, such as when somebody is coming at you with a big stick - you can't always convince people they are wrong and to limit oneself to intellectual arguments in all cases would create a situation where bullies always win.the strange guy said:Fascism exists in the minds of human beings. If you do not believe that you can counter their beliefs and challenge their stance using only your mind then you are likening them to neanderthals, which is prejudiced in itself. Relying on physical might is what people do when they worry their mind isn't good enough.
By remaining in the realm of the purely abstract you can make such statements without coming across as instantly absurd. As soon as you apply them to concrete situations their absurdity is clear. If you believe that the right to free speech is absolute, you believe that everybody has the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, you believe that I have the right to stand up at a funeral and start abusing the deceased.the strange guy said:disagree; rights are absolute. All human beings enjoy the same rights, one of which is the freedom to speak their minds. If you do not agree to this then you are in a position where you are categorising humans by virtue of what they can and cannot say. If you are a true anarchist then it is impossible for you to bestow rights upon people, given that these are birthrights and not gifts awarded by you.
The US government has an enormously powerful mechanism for demonstrating guilt. The problem with its treatment of "enemy combatants" is that they choose not to use it because they don't actually have the required evidence to prosecute and hence they obviously do not have sufficently high levels of certainty to justify the restriction of rights - by their own standards.the strange guy said:I think this is a very important point. Please explain how this pre-emptive policy against fascists is qualitatively different from the American government's policy against 'enemy combatants'.
They are not likely to kill us now or in the forseeable future.the strange guy said:I have trouble understanding how you find an armed, violent, ultra-nationalist group bent with plans of segregating this country's population by religion less of a threat than David Irving.
You missed the point. We argue that fascist organising should not be tolerated. 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 strange guy said:When you say a lot of people, how many do you mean? 10? 200? 1,000? More? How can you decide on which arguments become policy when there is little or no major opposition to them within your small group?
No. We do, however, defend ourselves.the strange guy said:Arguments are not an authority, only its enforcers. Do you see yourselves as enforcers of ideas?
That's just silly. If somebody's actions take away the rights of others and they refuse to stop, you have to use force or else the bullies win.the strange guy said:This is the case right now in most countries in the west. The freedom of a threatening individual is limited by their incarceration after being found guilty in court. The difference between your ideology and the present one is that yours is more physical, more barbaric and without the consent of the general public. As mentioned before, if full democracy (of the population, not your small group) was in place with regards to the treatment of those who threaten the rights of others, I am confident that using violence would not be the vote winner.
WSM-bot said:That's just silly. By turning it into a binary property you actually turn it into a unary property (since nobody could possibly believe that nobody should have the authority to take a gun away from a psychopath). Any unary property is meaningless and useless.
Of course it does, unless you are using a unique meaning of the concept "authority".
That's just silly. Relying on physical might is simply necessary sometimes, such as when somebody is coming at you with a big stick - you can't always convince people they are wrong and to limit oneself to intellectual arguments in all cases would create a situation where bullies always win.
By remaining in the realm of the purely abstract you can make such statements without coming across as instantly absurd. As soon as you apply them to concrete situations their absurdity is clear. If you believe that the right to free speech is absolute, you believe that everybody has the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded room, you believe that I have the right to stand up at a funeral and start abusing the deceased.
The US government has an enormously powerful mechanism for demonstrating guilt. The problem with its treatment of "enemy combatants" is that they choose not to use it because they don't actually have the required evidence to prosecute and hence they obviously do not have sufficently high levels of certainty to justify the restriction of rights - by their own standards.
They are not likely to kill us now or in the forseeable future.
You missed the point. We argue that fascist organising should not be tolerated. 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.
No. We do, however, defend ourselves.
That's just silly. If somebody's actions take away the rights of others and they refuse to stop, you have to use force or else the bullies win.
headmuzik said:"need to kill", you're just hitting keyboard keys without giving any thought to what you're saying... I think we can both agree that if someone was to beat you to a pulp every day for 5 years and take your lunch money, that person would be a bully. Have you ever tried arguing with a bully who enjoyed picking on you? Of course it doesn't work. But yet, by your logic if one day you managed to fight this bully off successfully and thereafter he left you alone... this makes YOU the bully? C'mon, engage your brain....
needtokill said:you use force,you ARE the bully.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.