05 Dec 2006, 3:11 pm
05 Dec 2006, 3:51 pm
Ok, hi communist! That caught my attention although it is sort of needless to broadcast your political views in such a manner. I mean, this is the internet, there are thousands of communists on the internet as well as every other political view. I do have a question though:
Quote:
(Nazi scum should be shot, in an ideal world)
Isn't shooting somebody for believing in fascism a fascist act in and of itself. After all, you are claiming that they should be punished for thought crime, are you not?Quote:
One fundamental is that lack of heirarchy is not the same as lack of order
Some might claim that, others would claim that hierarchy is a necessity to keep individuals in line and to promote stable society. That view going counter to yours by claiming that hierarchy is natural, necessary, and good for maintaining societal order. Of course, I am playing devil's advocate more than seriously proclaiming a political philosophy.Quote:
Stalin should have been shot at birth.
Now I know that you must be joking in order to display your dislike for certain people. Nobody knew what Stalin was going to do, so in order to shoot him at birth a purge would be necessary and few people believe in purges.
Anyway, now that all of that has been dealt with, welcome!
05 Dec 2006, 3:53 pm
05 Dec 2006, 4:36 pm
Tequila: I assume you mean right libertarian? In places where I normally discuss politics the default is left libertarian, so I am just asking for clarification.
Awesomelyglorious: I broadcast my views in order to gain attention more quickly. Whether that works or not I cannot say.
Quote:
Isn't shooting somebody for believing in fascism a fascist act in and of itself. After all, you are claiming that they should be punished for thought crime, are you not? [/QUOTE
Not really. Think of it this way: if the scum ever got into power who would they be coming after first? I cannot remember at the moment whether Hitler went after Jews or Communists first (I think the Communists came first, after the Reichstag fire). In a situation where Fascists get into power, anyone who ever called themselves a Socialist is in danger. Therefore, from my perspective, it is vital for my safety to prevent as much as possible a Fascist takeover.
There are two ways to do this: to get rid of the Fascists (which is very much illegal, and so I probably will not be doing much of that), or to keep them so disorganised that they are impotent. The most successful technique so far of doing to latter is to violently disrupt their meetings and make them afraid to assemble, to march in the streets etc.. That this the job of Antifa/AFA.
It works both ways too: in the early '30s the meetings of the Communist party (I do not think of them as Communists, but that is not really important for this discussion) were often violently disrupted by the Sturmabteilung, SA, and many members murdered or assaulted. The Nazis were organised before the depression, and so were stronger than they would have been if there had been an effective AFA before 1929.
This brings me on to the next point: In situations of great instability and unrest, economic depression etc., the situation tends towards a tipping point where you either have a revolution or a Fascist takeover (or similar). In the '30s the scum won, for reasons I mentioned previously. Organisation is key to deciding which side gets their preferred result. So, from my point of view, militant Anti-Fascism is essential for getting a revolutionary situation when the s**t hits the proverbial fan, and for making such a revolution succeed. After all, the Fascists would be one of our first opponents.
Also, violence is not an inherently Fascist thing. It existed long before Fascism, and will continue to exist after Fascism is a forgotten piece of history. It can be either progressive or regressive, or conservative. For me the ends justify the means, since in a future situation of struggle my life will be on the line.
I do not advocate hurting Nazis because of what they believe, or because of what they see, but for what they could do to me.
In Aragon and Catalonia, 1936, heirarchy was pretty much destroyed, yet the trams still ran (in fact, more trams ran, and were free), the factories still churned out goods (though granted, due to it being a civil war, a lot of what they produced was sent to the trenches) and there was no constant rioting. Violence in Barcelona lasted just for a few days in July, after the asunciemento of the Fascist Generals on July 17, and their subsequent coup attempt on the 18th (it failed, as they only took over half of Spain). In fact, fighting in Barcelona was late, and almost entirely happened on the 19th, which is the date normally given for the initial stage of the Spanish Revolution, in the same way as the storming of the winter palace of St. Petersburg was the initial stage of Russia's October Revolution.
If you read George Orwell's book Homage to Catalonia, on his experiences fighting for Spanish Revolution while in a POUM unit (the POUM were a Marxist-Leninist group, so I do not like them that much, but that is not relevant), he describes his time in revolutionary Barcelona in September or October, several months after the initial fighting. The only violence then was in the trenches all the way in Aragon.
So I would say that I had some evidence for my assertion that heirarchy is not necessary for order to exist.
Not really. Think of it this way: if the scum ever got into power who would they be coming after first? I cannot remember at the moment whether Hitler went after Jews or Communists first (I think the Communists came first, after the Reichstag fire). In a situation where Fascists get into power, anyone who ever called themselves a Socialist is in danger. Therefore, from my perspective, it is vital for my safety to prevent as much as possible a Fascist takeover.
There are two ways to do this: to get rid of the Fascists (which is very much illegal, and so I probably will not be doing much of that), or to keep them so disorganised that they are impotent. The most successful technique so far of doing to latter is to violently disrupt their meetings and make them afraid to assemble, to march in the streets etc.. That this the job of Antifa/AFA.
It works both ways too: in the early '30s the meetings of the Communist party (I do not think of them as Communists, but that is not really important for this discussion) were often violently disrupted by the Sturmabteilung, SA, and many members murdered or assaulted. The Nazis were organised before the depression, and so were stronger than they would have been if there had been an effective AFA before 1929.
This brings me on to the next point: In situations of great instability and unrest, economic depression etc., the situation tends towards a tipping point where you either have a revolution or a Fascist takeover (or similar). In the '30s the scum won, for reasons I mentioned previously. Organisation is key to deciding which side gets their preferred result. So, from my point of view, militant Anti-Fascism is essential for getting a revolutionary situation when the s**t hits the proverbial fan, and for making such a revolution succeed. After all, the Fascists would be one of our first opponents.
Also, violence is not an inherently Fascist thing. It existed long before Fascism, and will continue to exist after Fascism is a forgotten piece of history. It can be either progressive or regressive, or conservative. For me the ends justify the means, since in a future situation of struggle my life will be on the line.
I do not advocate hurting Nazis because of what they believe, or because of what they see, but for what they could do to me.
Quote:
Some might claim that, others would claim that hierarchy is a necessity to keep individuals in line and to promote stable society. That view going counter to yours by claiming that hierarchy is natural, necessary, and good for maintaining societal order. Of course, I am playing devil's advocate more than seriously proclaiming a political philosophy.
In Aragon and Catalonia, 1936, heirarchy was pretty much destroyed, yet the trams still ran (in fact, more trams ran, and were free), the factories still churned out goods (though granted, due to it being a civil war, a lot of what they produced was sent to the trenches) and there was no constant rioting. Violence in Barcelona lasted just for a few days in July, after the asunciemento of the Fascist Generals on July 17, and their subsequent coup attempt on the 18th (it failed, as they only took over half of Spain). In fact, fighting in Barcelona was late, and almost entirely happened on the 19th, which is the date normally given for the initial stage of the Spanish Revolution, in the same way as the storming of the winter palace of St. Petersburg was the initial stage of Russia's October Revolution.
If you read George Orwell's book Homage to Catalonia, on his experiences fighting for Spanish Revolution while in a POUM unit (the POUM were a Marxist-Leninist group, so I do not like them that much, but that is not relevant), he describes his time in revolutionary Barcelona in September or October, several months after the initial fighting. The only violence then was in the trenches all the way in Aragon.
So I would say that I had some evidence for my assertion that heirarchy is not necessary for order to exist.
Quote:
Now I know that you must be joking in order to display your dislike for certain people. Nobody knew what Stalin was going to do, so in order to shoot him at birth a purge would be necessary and few people believe in purges.
05 Dec 2006, 5:13 pm
05 Dec 2006, 5:48 pm
Quote:
But still, essentially speaking, you are advocating the destruction of liberty for your goal.
They would destroy my liberty.
Quote:
Now this in itself is a negation of freedom, one might argue that it is a necessary one but by doing so you must set up an authority over the rights of individuals that is essentially a thought police.
There is very little freedom under a state. I have very little say in anything.
It is enough that they sit at home all day and do nothing in order to advance their cause. It does not matter what they think. If they are impotent, that is enough. Morality does not enter into this
Quote:
attempt to monopolize power.
Not really. Antifa has no power in the political sense of the word. Members of Antifa have just as little influence on their destiny as majority of the population. Preventing some other group from taking power in the future does not give you power.
Quote:
As well, the events during that time period in Spain did have the destruction of people and of property without necessarily having a just cause(the belief that those people held a contrary political view), essentially a reign of terror, but as well, it is argued that anarchists in Spain essentially had governments with some people having more authority than others.
Due to the failure of both the Revolution and the Fascist coup to take over the entire country, there was a bloody civil war. Civil wars are usually the most unpleasant. In Spain, hundreds of thousands died from 1936-9, and after the war ended hundreds of thousands more were executed, and a couple of million placed in concentration camps in Spain, and some more, who had escaped Spain, were in camps in France (and, during the occupation of France, became some of the more desperate Maquis), but I digress.
In a highly politicised civil war like that in Spain, someone with a contrary political view [I]is[/is] an enemy, someone who can potentially harm you now or in the future. In the Anarchist areas Fascists were shot, and vice versa. Letting them live can cause untold damage. Clergy were not, usually, excepted. The vast majorityy of the clergy was in support of the Fascists. In fact, I think the Pope himself supported Franco for "stemming the Red Tide". There were cases of clergy handing over information about where Anarchists were hiding in areas that had been captured by Fascists, causing thousands of deaths, which might have been avoided if the Fascist pig had been shot.
Define government. Also, there are two types of authority, rational and irrational. Rational authority is authority that is given from person to person, from the person who is giving someone else authority over them. The person giving authority has control over it, and can withdraw it at any time. A classical example is that of a novice glider and an instructor. The novice will usually do what the instructor says, as he is the authority on gliding, and he recognises this and does he suggests. Irrational authority however is authority that has been forced upon you by a heirarchical system, usually with the threat of violence. The police are an example of this. Do what they say or they arrest you. If you resist, then the state apparatus will try to send you to a cell for a period of time, or damage your wallet (and hence, for most people, their chance to have good food, other essentials, or even small pleasures, depending on the sum). Their is nothing democratic about irrational authority, while rational authority always is democratic.
Quote:
Really though, I have not read too much about Spanish Anarchy.
I have. I am an aspie.
05 Dec 2006, 5:56 pm
05 Dec 2006, 6:07 pm
05 Dec 2006, 6:19 pm
05 Dec 2006, 7:45 pm
05 Dec 2006, 7:59 pm
05 Dec 2006, 7:59 pm
05 Dec 2006, 8:10 pm
05 Dec 2006, 8:18 pm
05 Dec 2006, 10:38 pm
05 Dec 2006, 10:39 pm
