No Platform For Fascists - Discuss (1 Viewer)

[D0njo]

eirecore, i almost gave up on you!
this is the most interesting thread i've seen on the board.. for a long, long time.. i'd put in my 2 cents, but i'm an idiot, and it would probably only be a pitiful amount of some defunct currency..

 

[seaners]

Just to clarify, that 'if it feels good, do it' thing was a simpsons quote. Probably a little obscure.... Townies who beat people up don't tend to do it for ideological reasons. Unless they are the real class warriors. Drawing comparisons between random acts of violence in a fucked-up society and organised politicised violence with an ideological background (of which i sometimes subscribe to...) is a bit disingenuous. Most of the other points I would have taken you up on have already been answered above

 

[The Schnapper]

I have nothing intelligent to add.


my 0.02

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

should there be a platform for selling NSBM records?

wheeler snared rapid at the gates ov darkest sentinel

(the answer is 'who cares')

 

[Denver Max]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XJF0VfsogqM
​

 

[W.]

should there be a platform for selling NSBM records?

wheeler snared rapid at the gates ov darkest sentinel

(the answer is 'who cares')

I was there to shut it down like, it worked as you saw.

 

[sludgegrinder]

I was there to shut it down like, it worked as you saw.

shut sentinal down ? fuck i was just in there today......must of been flash backs from the shrooms so....

 

[W.]

yeh, i was joking.

 

[the strange guy]

Thanks for all of your replies. My own reply ended up being way too long. I feel too many people would lose interest far too quickly if they had to read through all of that shite! Instead I've written a summary of what I've learned from this thread. By sticking to key points we can avoid having unnecessarily long replies.

WSM is an anarchist movement.
WSM is not anti-authoritarian.
When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM itself can be considered an authority.

WSM does not consider freedom of speech as a universal right enjoyed by all human beings.
WSM believes that the act of speaking freely is a privilege granted by others.
When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM can take away this privilege from others.

WSM believes that diplomacy just isn't enough to gain political goals; violence is sometimes called for.
WSM will use censorship and violence against fascist groups as a way of fighting for its own existence, not to protect minorities.

 

[1000smurfs]

i agree with your summary/findings for the most part i think, i look forward to a WSM reply.

it seems to me the 'no platform' policy is just the WSM version of the prohibtion of incitement
to hatred act , which if true , means that whenever they implement it, they are putting themsleves in the role of the state or more spefically police,judge,jury and executioner.

I'd rather see the WSM in the role of watchdog, reporting facist organisation, (which surely falls within the remit of the act) where they find it
and trying pursue a conviction in the courts, this would be more productive,
has this been tried?

i consider myself an anarchist in that i have a healthy mistrust for all forms of authority

i mistrust WSM because they seem to have romantic historical notions of revoloution and justified violence which is at odds with their more noble aims and endeavours.

free speech is a tough one though, its very hard to reach a position that isn't either hypocritical,impractical or absolutist.

 

[The Schnapper]

WSM are good babysitters, I trust 'em

 

[nooleen]

I'd rather see the WSM in the role of watchdog, reporting facist organisation, (which surely falls within the remit of the act) where they find it
and trying pursue a conviction in the courts, this would be more productive,
has this been tried?

i consider myself an anarchist in that i have a healthy mistrust for all forms of authority

entrusting all the authority to deal with anything to the courts isn't very anarchist, though, is it?

 

[1000smurfs]

entrusting all the authority to deal with anything to the courts isn't very anarchist, though, is it?

i take your point, i wouldn't trust them to get it right on every issue.
But if the idea is to alienate ,isolate and stop fascists, and there already is a law within mainstream society then shouldn't that be pursued first. Direct action has its role to play,but you've got to also engage with the mainstream if you want to make a real difference.

 

[the strange guy]

entrusting all the authority to deal with anything to the courts isn't very anarchist, though, is it?

I think what the WSM has proved is that if you have a group of people that agree on the same thing then anything can be achieved under an anarchist guise.

 

[headmuzik]

I'm disappointed that instead of posting a longer reply which might have provoked a more constructive debate, "strange_guy" has chosen to post 8 short statements, 1 of which is disputed by no-one and brings no new information to the table - "The WSM is an anarchist movement". This is followed by 7 allegations, none of which are logical conclusions from any of the arguments myself and other WSM posters have put forward. Unfortunately no explanation has been given as to how he came to these conclusions, so I cannot take issue with the logic (if there was logic used) to arrive at them.

The first of of these statements - "WSM is not Anti-Authoritarian" is contradicted by the first statement. Now, I had previously suggested a way of thinking about Authority as a scale, which unfortunately may have given rise to this misconception. I had said that "Anti-Authoritianism" could be considered in the context of my scale to be an extreme viewpoint which constituted an opposition to ALL authority. I should have been clearer before in explaining that there is NOBODY in this category. No person or group in history has ever advocated or even suggested that it would be remotely feasible or practical to to oppose ALL authority. Natural authority (expertise) in various fields is respected as a matter of course in all societies, ie. a surgeon is an authority on triple-bypass-surgery, you are not. Then there is the temporary "authority" positions needed for chairing meetings etc.

So in reality, this type of Anti-Authoritarianism is not advocated by anyone.
I will instead chose to go with the standard dictionary definition. The quote from Wikipedia reads:

"Anti-authoritarianism is opposition to authoritarianism, which is defined as "concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people" The term anti-authoritarianism is typically extended to include a rejection of all forms of political, social, and economic coercion.
....."Anti-authoritarian is sometimes used as another term for anarchist"

Going by this agreed (and standard) definition, if the WSM is an anarchist organisation, we are also, by definition, anti-authoritarian.

Next he presents the extraordinary statement : "When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM itself can be considered an authority."
On a purely technical point, "consensus" is not necessary in most cases for the WSM to make a decision as an organisation. Often, majority voting is fine. But as to the "authority" part, you must define what KIND of authority you think the WSM is considered to be after we make a decision. A Moral Authority? State Authority? Legislative Authority? By what means or methods are you suggesting that we might implement this supposed "Authority"? Who considers the WSM to be an "authority" on anything?

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

False. We do indeed consider freedom of speech to be a universal right enjoyed by all human beings. But as the position paper states, we believe there are limited circumstances under which this right can legitimately be curbed (specifically as a side-effect of preventing fascists groups from organising). Note I did NOT say that in the case of certain PEOPLE having this or that kind of political agenda, or in the case of people having certain BELIEFS, their right to freedom of speech should be curbed. It matters not what your beliefs are, your race, your religion,ar anything else, no matter who you are, if you take the specific ACTION of attempting to organise a fascist group, we will attempt to stop you. It is not even about refusing to debate with fascists, I HAVE done so in the past and I will happily continue to do, the issue is when a fascist group is organising, that we agree to do our best to prevent this occurring.

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

False. You don't explain how you came to the conclusion that we hold this belief, but I can state with certainty that no-one in the organisation holds this opinion.

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

Well, okay the previous technical point on consensus applies here as well, but moving onto the core of it.....sorry if this is a bit repetitive but our position papers include only ONE situation in which we believe the right to freedom of speech can legitimately be curbed :- as a side-effect of our preventing a fascist group/violent racist group from organising. The organisation may reach agreement on any number of matters but in no other situation is there a provision for (or a legitimation of) curbing the right to freedom of speech.

Since the entire objective, method and goal of our organisation includes ensuring that all people enjoy equal freedoms, it is possible to extrapolate into the future and say that the only situations in which would ever consider it legitimate to curb the right to freedom of speech is one in which we have clear and conclusive proof that persons are abusing this right in order to threaten or cause actual physical harm or injury to other people. A persons right to life without physical harm from others should be protected even if it results in the infringement of the right to free speech.

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

Well, very frequently, diplomacy is NOT enough to gain political goals, but my belief is that violence is only justified in cases involving self-defense of the person. Preventing fascists organising does not necessarily entail physical violence to the person involved, as I explained above. Obviously, I believe self-defense is legitimate if the fascists physically attack US as we prevent them from organising. Violence is ALWAYS something to be avoided, obviously a peaceful resolution is preferable in all cases. Despite what you seem to believe, we do not wander the streets looking for nazis to beat to a pulp.

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

Protection of the rights of minorities is important - this is one of the reasons why we attempt to prevent fascist groups organising. Of course if those same fascists groups threaten our own organisation (which has not occurred to my knowledge) then we would certainly act to defend ourselves - that is to say - if we are violently attacked by a fascist group, then yes, we will fight back as well as we can, I can't see any problem with that, and the "censorship" that you mention will certainly occur but only while we attempt to prevent them from successfully organising.

I'd appreciate if any responses took the form of cohesive and logical argument which moves toward substantively criticising or refuting my points rather than short allegations that "WSM believe this" or "WSM believe that"

To 1000Smurf's, who "considers himself an anarchist", I can only say that, do you not consider it a little ironic that one minute you are claiming to have a "healthy mistrust for all forms of authority", and the next you are suggesting that the WSM take up a position as state watchdog for fascism and pursue fascists through the state judicial system!!!! Astounding. You might as well suggest that we take orders from Michael McDowell (which is basically what this would amount to!) You say that "Direct action has its role to play,but you've got to also engage with the mainstream if you want to make a real difference." Well "engaging with the mainstream" is one thing.... but you are suggesting that an anarchist organisation basically become an arm of the state! The anarchists argument against the justice system is not that it doesn't "get it right on every issue." , but that it is a system of class justice whose decisions are inevitably unjust and prejudicial. Its not about getting it right or wrong sometimes, the problem is with the inherently unjust nature of the system itself. I admire your supposed mistrust for authority but your ideas are a considerable distance from anarchism yet.

 

[Napalm]

^ Thats a big old post. Back on topic. No platform for fascists as the first thing they would take from us is a platform.

 

[sludgegrinder]

yeh, i was joking.

And I was being sarcastic....

So what is thee ol' platform as to selling NS records....

 

[seaners]

for anyone interested on more on political violence...
http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=37739&page=15

 

[Janer]

mORE VIOLENCE FOR U VIOLENCE PEOPLE

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_video_Jul_10_2006.html

 

[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 without 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!