Griffin prevented from lecturing at my University

[TremulousTetra]

Garfield, let's deal with a couple of side issues raised first.

When I said in my opinion you have given a satisfactory definition of fascism, it wasn't because I had any lack of clarity of what I believe to be fascism and not fascism, but simply a recognition of the fact that other people may not be satisfied with that definition. It was also in recognition that every debater has to concede the possibility he may be wrong. If you cannot accept the possibility you may be wrong Garfield, you are not debating, you are dictating.

analogies are always going to be limited tools. If you want to go on making spurious attacks upon an analogy, taking it to mean something it was not intended to, you are not honestly debating. Ask for clarification by all means. My analogy of the gun and a knife, was merely meant to represent the antifascist do not want to go as far as fascist, either banning imprisoning people for their political belief, and that brings me onto another funny point. It is pantomime debating, if I say we are categorically against the banning of the BNP, and you say oh not you're not you start with a nobel ideal and then quickely it descends into tolatitarianism. If you have a theory that I am indeed for the banning of the BNP then bring some evidence to prove your hypothesis. And if you have no evidence to prove your theory, change your theory.

I'm sorry, the police, the state, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair etc are not fascist in my opinion. There is no tenable definition of fascism that could cover such a wide spectrum. If it did, it would make the term fascism meaningless. If everybody is a fascist, what is fascism mean? If you can instruct an argument/definition that makes all these fascist feel free.

In your definition it said

ascist small f; collection of authroitarian actions designed to limit and control people, introduce monotype thought in order to reenforce the poltical dogma of Fasism large F; the political ideals of fascism which enforces the ideal that the greater good is more important the the needs of the indivual, as reenforced by the state.

Fascism is collection of authoritarian actions to introduce monotype thought fascism, where as antifascist aim is to defend conservatism, reformism, liberalism, socialism, anarchism in other words political plurality from having a monotype political doctrine fascism forced upon it. There is no getting away from this for you. Your definition clearly defines fascism as introducing monotype thought, anti-fascism is not introducing monotype thought but maintaining plurality of thought and so is not fascism.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech as many people have already pointed out. Communities have always set limits. Of course I could be wrong, can you give me an example is on where and when there has been absolute free speech? Otherwise, What we are discussing is whether no platform is a good way of implementing the community's ostracising of fascism. Make no doubt, the community has already ostracised fascism from acceptable politics. Griffin has already accepted that fascism is unelectable in this country. The only reason the BNP is in a grey area as to whether no platform is applicable, is because it denies it is fascist.

Lastly, no platform does not impose upon the fascists a belief system. They are free to believe what they want. They will not be drawn into concentration camps. They will not be imprisoned for their political belief. Their political party will not be banned. They are just not free to use my house, my workplace, my university, my street to promote their views without opposition. Every time they use those places to promote their views, I will use them to oppose their views. I will call upon the community, to do the same thing, not co-operate with fascism. If we the community do not have the freedom to withhold our labour, we are slaves. If fascists have the right to use our facilities against the will of the community, it is not a free country.

PS. I am glad you have made your argument. I respect your view point, it is one to be taken seriously in my opinion.

 

[Tom A]

Griffin is still going to be speaking in Bath, but at a new location which is being kept secret by the BNP (unsurprisingly).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/6653715.stm

 

[Plato1983]

Sometimes a judgement call has to made. I'm not a fan of utilitarianism, but in this case the freedom of the few i.e. the fash to whom you'd give a platform, has to be weighed against the greater good of society and the citizens who live in that society, particularly those who are most likely to suffer e.g. homosexuals, people of colour, immigrants and those whose politics are "left of centre".

Your wrong there.

Banning anyone for expressing their views is a slippery slope to giving university authorities, the state and any other body the power to start banning any person or political group under the pretext of defending public order or if we use New Labour jargon "community cohesion".

You claim the BNP, NF and Griffin are an exception here due to their expression of their dislike for certain social groupings (blacks, Asians, LGBT people and leftists). But for many people who do not have left wing beliefs or not involved in socialist/anarchist politics, they could argue that the left is also guilty of hating certain groups in society (the rich and owners of the means of production, the police, the religious etc...). For example the arguement you have put against the BNP could well be used against the likes of the anarchist group Class War. Have you ever seen the Class War posters with the "New homes for the rich" with a picture of decomposing corpses in coffins?

Banning the BNP/NF or any other fascist group under the pretext you give is only going to resonate with people who are on the left politically. To the non-politically committed person, which is the case for the vast majority of the people in this country, the demand by the political left to ban fascists from public places of debate will only show up those advocates of the ban as being hypocritical and authoritarian, nothing more.

The BNP/NF don't have the best or strongest arguements in the world. Is it not better to show them up and display to all who listen that their views are foolish and bigoted. The BNP have lost support in many places where they have won council seats as the BNP councillors have shown themselves to be innefficient, incompetent and unable to give the people a voice in the local councils. At the end of the day, we don't ban people who believe in witchcraft, magic, a flat earth or that our rulers are ETs from outer space, we let them have their say and most people simply acknowledge them as lunatics, nothing more.

Also, a for people on the political left, you make much of you opposition to the state and the current system. But if you start asking the very state and authorities you oppose to ban fascists, does it not give people the impression that you have no actual arguement, that your views are too weak to hold out in an open debate. Instead of banning the BNP/NF etc..., better yet the political left starts getting organised and actually do something for the working class and the neglected Labour voters who are turning to the BNP. The IWCA seems to have grasped this and they are doing better than any of the sects, be it the SWP/SP/CPGB etc...

The BNP is only where it is today because the political left have failed to gain the support of ordinary people due to the political left spending more time on issues that don't affect working class people rather than the issues that do.

 

[kyser_soze]

You're never going to stop facism by behaving like a fascist. All the bollocks about 'not giving democratic rights to people who would rip apart democracy' is bollocks - are you suggesting that anyone who supports the BNP should be denied a vote?

What never ceases to amaze - and worry - is the number of people who want to significantly alter society to what they see as 'fairer' - who are happy to support bans of this kind.

On the 'communities have always set limits' to freedom of speech - absolutely. From being stoned for repeating God's name for example. It's a poor argument to use to support the suppression of someone speaking in public of their ideas.

Besides, do none of you remember that suppression NEVER works, not matter what. and no matter under what external political conditions? History, which anyone who claims to be on the left should be absolutely aware of, shows time after time that attempts to suppress something that people want to listen to will fail.

Best recent example - Brass Eye's Paedogeddon episode - the repeated episode was watched by more people than the first.

You won't defeat facism by banning it's speakers - authoritarianism of any kind has always resonated across social barriers just as much as libertarianism in all it's various forms.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

A lot of confusion about what constitutes "free speech" on display here. Bans on child pornography and the incitement of violence are not restrictions on "free speech". (The freedom to give any opinion on any subject.) Banning the incitement of "racial hatred" is a restriction on free speech, and one I addressed a few pages back.

Supporting "some" free speech is a contradiction in terms. Free speech is an absolute. In true doublethink style everyone claims to support it but very, very few (at least in the UK) actually do. Free speech is not an easy thing to support: you have to allow loathsome people like Mr Griffin to say loathsome things.

Personally I think that debating where instead of whether to limit free speech is dangerous beyond the telling of it. It gives governments power they absolutely should not have, and like most tyrannical moves, it begins from the best of motives.

(As for facists deciding to march through streets with a high Jewish population while shouting "clear out the yids", that constitutes fighting words in anyone's book. Again, not an issue of "free speech". To give John Stuart Mill's quaint but effective example: stating that the Corn Laws are wrong is free speech; stating that the Corn Laws are wrong in front of a baying mob outside the farmer's house is incitement.)

Banning speech because of its potential outcome (in the opinion of the banner) is against the free speech principle. Governments that ban the expression of certain views do it because they don't like the possible outcomes; they're generally quite happy to let people talk about things they don't care about, they just have different definitions of what needs to be prevented.

The reason that almost nobody supports free speech above all else is that almost everyone recognises utilitarian arguments against certain aspects of it. "Freedom of speech except for speech I think will be a bad thing" is not freedom of speech - not necessarily a bad idea either, but let's not pretend it's not trying to stop people saying things you don't think should be heard.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You're never going to stop facism by behaving like a fascist. All the bollocks about 'not giving democratic rights to people who would rip apart democracy' is bollocks - are you suggesting that anyone who supports the BNP should be denied a vote?

What never ceases to amaze - and worry - is the number of people who want to significantly alter society to what they see as 'fairer' - who are happy to support bans of this kind.

On the 'communities have always set limits' to freedom of speech - absolutely. From being stoned for repeating God's name for example. It's a poor argument to use to support the suppression of someone speaking in public of their ideas.

Besides, do none of you remember that suppression NEVER works, not matter what. and no matter under what external political conditions? History, which anyone who claims to be on the left should be absolutely aware of, shows time after time that attempts to suppress something that people want to listen to will fail.

Best recent example - Brass Eye's Paedogeddon episode - the repeated episode was watched by more people than the first.

You won't defeat facism by banning it's speakers - authoritarianism of any kind has always resonated across social barriers just as much as libertarianism in all it's various forms.

Your wrong there.

Banning anyone for expressing their views is a slippery slope to giving university authorities, the state and any other body the power to start banning any person or political group under the pretext of defending public order or if we use New Labour jargon "community cohesion".

You claim the BNP, NF and Griffin are an exception here due to their expression of their dislike for certain social groupings (blacks, Asians, LGBT people and leftists). But for many people who do not have left wing beliefs or not involved in socialist/anarchist politics, they could argue that the left is also guilty of hating certain groups in society (the rich and owners of the means of production, the police, the religious etc...). For example the arguement you have put against the BNP could well be used against the likes of the anarchist group Class War. Have you ever seen the Class War posters with the "New homes for the rich" with a picture of decomposing corpses in coffins?

Banning the BNP/NF or any other fascist group under the pretext you give is only going to resonate with people who are on the left politically. To the non-politically committed person, which is the case for the vast majority of the people in this country, the demand by the political left to ban fascists from public places of debate will only show up those advocates of the ban as being hypocritical and authoritarian, nothing more.

The BNP/NF don't have the best or strongest arguements in the world. Is it not better to show them up and display to all who listen that their views are foolish and bigoted. The BNP have lost support in many places where they have won council seats as the BNP councillors have shown themselves to be innefficient, incompetent and unable to give the people a voice in the local councils. At the end of the day, we don't ban people who believe in witchcraft, magic, a flat earth or that our rulers are ETs from outer space, we let them have their say and most people simply acknowledge them as lunatics, nothing more.

Also, a for people on the political left, you make much of you opposition to the state and the current system. But if you start asking the very state and authorities you oppose to ban fascists, does it not give people the impression that you have no actual arguement, that your views are too weak to hold out in an open debate. Instead of banning the BNP/NF etc..., better yet the political left starts getting organised and actually do something for the working class and the neglected Labour voters who are turning to the BNP. The IWCA seems to have grasped this and they are doing better than any of the sects, be it the SWP/SP/CPGB etc...

The BNP is only where it is today because the political left have failed to gain the support of ordinary people due to the political left spending more time on issues that don't affect working class people rather than the issues that do.

IMHO you haven't really dealt with this more subtle arguemet for societal ostracising

Garfield, let's deal with a couple of side issues raised first.

When I said in my opinion you have given a satisfactory definition of fascism, it wasn't because I had any lack of clarity of what I believe to be fascism and not fascism, but simply a recognition of the fact that other people may not be satisfied with that definition. It was also in recognition that every debater has to concede the possibility he may be wrong. If you cannot accept the possibility you may be wrong Garfield, you are not debating, you are dictating.

analogies are always going to be limited tools. If you want to go on making spurious attacks upon an analogy, taking it to mean something it was not intended to, you are not honestly debating. Ask for clarification by all means. My analogy of the gun and a knife, was merely meant to represent the antifascist do not want to go as far as fascist, either banning imprisoning people for their political belief, and that brings me onto another funny point. It is pantomime debating, if I say we are categorically against the banning of the BNP, and you say oh not you're not you start with a nobel ideal and then quickely it descends into tolatitarianism. If you have a theory that I am indeed for the banning of the BNP then bring some evidence to prove your hypothesis. And if you have no evidence to prove your theory, change your theory.

I'm sorry, the police, the state, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair etc are not fascist in my opinion. There is no tenable definition of fascism that could cover such a wide spectrum. If it did, it would make the term fascism meaningless. If everybody is a fascist, what is fascism mean? If you can instruct an argument/definition that makes all these fascist feel free.

In your definition it said Fascism is collection of authoritarian actions to introduce monotype thought fascism, where as antifascist aim is to defend conservatism, reformism, liberalism, socialism, anarchism in other words political plurality from having a monotype political doctrine fascism forced upon it. There is no getting away from this for you. Your definition clearly defines fascism as introducing monotype thought, anti-fascism is not introducing monotype thought but maintaining plurality of thought and so is not fascism.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech as many people have already pointed out. Communities have always set limits. Of course I could be wrong, can you give me an example is on where and when there has been absolute free speech? Otherwise, What we are discussing is whether no platform is a good way of implementing the community's ostracising of fascism. Make no doubt, the community has already ostracised fascism from acceptable politics. Griffin has already accepted that fascism is unelectable in this country. The only reason the BNP is in a grey area as to whether no platform is applicable, is because it denies it is fascist.

Lastly, no platform does not impose upon the fascists a belief system. They are free to believe what they want. They will not be drawn into concentration camps. They will not be imprisoned for their political belief. Their political party will not be banned. They are just not free to use my house, my workplace, my university, my street to promote their views without opposition. Every time they use those places to promote their views, I will use them to oppose their views. I will call upon the community, to do the same thing, not co-operate with fascism. If we the community do not have the freedom to withhold our labour, we are slaves. If fascists have the right to use our facilities against the will of the community, it is not a free country.

PS. I am glad you have made your argument. I respect your view point, it is one to be taken seriously in my opinion.

 

[nino_savatte]

Griffin is still going to be speaking in Bath, but at a new location which is being kept secret by the BNP (unsurprisingly).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/6653715.stm

LOL!!! At this rate he'll end up speaking in the gents at Bath station.

 

[kyser_soze]

What we are discussing is whether no platform is a good way of implementing the community's ostracising of fascism. Make no doubt, the community has already ostracised fascism from acceptable politics. Griffin has already accepted that fascism is unelectable in this country. The only reason the BNP is in a grey area as to whether no platform is applicable, is because it denies it is fascist.

'The community' has achieved no such thing, all it's done is made those who hold fascist views keep silent when asked about them, and that's all 'No Platform' will ever achieve - it won't address the reasons people will/still support fascist authoritarianism anymore than the collapse of the Berlin wall has stopped authoritarian leftists thinking that re-education camps would be the way forward in a socialist state.

They are just not free to use my house, my workplace, my university, my street to promote their views without opposition. Every time they use those places to promote their views, I will use them to oppose their views. I will call upon the community, to do the same thing, not co-operate with fascism. If we the community do not have the freedom to withhold our labour, we are slaves. If fascists have the right to use our facilities against the will of the community, it is not a free country.

Hmm, so what If I'm not a fascist but want to promote something you personally don't like? All of your calling to 'the community' is hollow - which community? Some mythical one where everyone agrees with you? Griffin has been banned by the trade unions, not 'the community' on the same spurious grounds of safety that, when the police ban a march for a political view you happen to agree with, they are accused of, ironically enough, being fascist (not necessarily by you RMP3). What I also find really interesting is your use of the word 'my' when referring to 'the community' - not 'our street, our university' but 'my'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You will have to forgive me kyser, I in no way do I intend to offend or be disingenuous when I say I don't think you actually read my post. Well, obviously you mechanically read it, but I don't think you let the argument sink in. You seem to have been addressing arguments you think I should hold, rather than the ones I actually put.

You say "the community has achieved no such thing" but then say all it has done is make those "who holds fascist views keep silent when asked about them". that's right, that's all the community has achieved. That is exactly what I was saying.

May I humbly suggest instead of trying to look through my argument for bits you can disagree with, why don't you try dealing with the argument in entirety? Often the various sentences and paragraphs support each other. For example

Your three questions in the second paragraph have already been answered in the previous post. If you want to attack this then please do so. Then you point to an argument, the police are fascist, which has nothing to do with me. That is the position I have vociferously argued against (as you allude). Lastly, if I wanted to say the community belongs to me, I would state it. You haven't made any great psychological analysis of my argument, just suggested the stereotype about SW members went to control society.



-----------
now I would like to try to clarify an argument of yours.

Now I cannot believe any real anarchist would suggest the antifascist movement wich applies the principle of no platform is negated because this won't address the reasons people will/still support fascist authoritarianism anymore than the collapse of the Berlin wall has stopped authoritarian leftists thinking that re-education camps would be the way forward in a socialist state. Let me be clear here what you are suggesting is the only real anti-fascists are revolutionaries, those who aim to address the reason, capitalism, people support fascist authoritarianism etc, yes?

In fact I can't believe a real anarchist would say the People's movement that overthrew the Russian dictatorship was negated by the fact it didn't create a classless society. This would be like saying any working-class response that does not create classless society is not valid. If you think a no platform antifascist movement is invalid, do you also think trade unions are invalid?

Surely you can't be saying this, so could you explain to me what you do mean?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well I'm not a 'real' anarchist to start with

I would argue that the People's Movement that overthrew the Tsar's was negated not by failing to create a classless society, but by the fact that it allowed a degenerate mix of cult of personality, authoritarian socialism and state capitalism to thrive; using the basic idea that a small flaw in a chain of logic will cascade eventually causing a failure, clearly there was a flaw inherent in the 'People's Movement' that caused the final results to be so spectacularly bad, the previous dictatorship seemed mild in it's depradations.

I don't think the concept of TUs is invalid - I think the practical implementation of them often leaves a lot to be desired, but that's organisational and a diverting side topic so I won't dwell on them, but yes, since I view the basic principle of No Platform as being flawed, the outcomes that it creates will not only be flawed but will amplify the flaw - as has been shown in every case in history when an idea that can have widespread support has been suppressed. Additional to this, oppression itself creates a mindset that, even if the basic principle behind an idea is morally sound - for example, in Martin Luther's Protest against indulgences - the reaction of the Catholic Church was such that it creatred more alientated, virulent and aggressive forms of Protestantism, plunging Europe into 500 years of religious conflict. Look at the suppression of socialism/anarchism and the mentality it creates among many of said people today?

 

[TremulousTetra]

double post

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well I'm not a 'real' anarchist to start with

I would argue that the People's Movement that overthrew the Tsar's was negated not by failing to create a classless society, but by the fact that it allowed a degenerate mix of cult of personality, authoritarian socialism and state capitalism to thrive; using the basic idea that a small flaw in a chain of logic will cascade eventually causing a failure, clearly there was a flaw inherent in the 'People's Movement' that caused the final results to be so spectacularly bad, the previous dictatorship seemed mild in it's depradations.

I don't think the concept of TUs is invalid - I think the practical implementation of them often leaves a lot to be desired, but that's organisational and a diverting side topic so I won't dwell on them, but yes, since I view the basic principle of No Platform as being flawed, the outcomes that it creates will not only be flawed but will amplify the flaw - as has been shown in every case in history when an idea that can have widespread support has been suppressed. Additional to this, oppression itself creates a mindset that, even if the basic principle behind an idea is morally sound - for example, in Martin Luther's Protest against indulgences - the reaction of the Catholic Church was such that it creatred more alientated, virulent and aggressive forms of Protestantism, plunging Europe into 500 years of religious conflict. Look at the suppression of socialism/anarchism and the mentality it creates among many of said people today?

WTF are you on kyser? I write things, but you seem to be responding to somebody else. nobody has even mentioned the Tsar.

Anyway, I think yours and the anarchist position on trade unions, antifascist movements, etc, is elitist. If you ever do get round to reading what I had said, I think you may see that I have delineated this.

have a nice day.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well sorree - I assumed you were referring to the Russian Revolution, not the collapse of the Soviet Union; perhaps if you made your positions (and eras)clearer...

And from where I'm sitting I've responded directly to your points - and being anti-fascist simply means being against fascism, not supporting an historically failed idea of trying to ban things you don't like.

Anyway, I think yours and the anarchist position on trade unions, antifascist movements, etc, is elitist. If you ever do get round to reading what I had said, I think you may see that I have delineated this

Well why didn't you say it in a single line instead of burying it in unpuntuated sentences?

 

[TremulousTetra]

you and a cheeky swine. it was you who started talking about the Berlin Wall in Post 98. I merely carried on in post 99 from where you left off and even quoting you from post 98. So quite naturally assumed you would know what you are talking about.

look back at what I've said. It is not about banning things. The anti-Nazi league, and unite against fascism, has consistently argued against banning of fascist parties. see post 42

you honestly believe I could convince you of the error in your argument with one line?

 

[Dowie]

No platform for racists and facists in our universities. End of fucking story.

What about no platform for hard core lefties promoting public disorder and violence under the banner of direct action?

If you start banning people from speaking purely because you don't like what they've got to say then you've surely got to have a very weak view of the strength of your own politics or a very dim view of the general intelligence of the rest of the student population.

 

[The Black Hand]

If you start banning people from speaking purely because you don't like what they've got to say then you've surely got to have a very weak view of the strength of your own politics or a very dim view of the general intelligence of the rest of the student population.

I hate them becos they smell as bad as you.

But seriously, call it revenge for those their political forefathers killed during the war

 

[Darios]

I just found out that the Libertarian Alliance were (possibly forcibly?) removed from last year's Anarchist Bookfair.

The reason is, quote: "anger over the intrusion of members of ‘anarcho-capitalist’ group the Libertarian Alliance, whose politics significantly clash with the Bookfair’s ethos by promoting the retention of private property and business in an otherwise lawless society."

Were any of you advocating 'no platform' and violence-backed censorship for the BNP and their ilk on this thread party to this ejection?

You bunch of utter utter hypocrites.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ah, but the Libertarian Alliance is linked to some very dodgy right wing organisations including British United Industrialists, the IEA, the Freedom Association, the Adam Smith Institute and even LM/RCP/Spiked/IoI.

Here's the link page from their site
http://libertarian-alliance.org.uk/

 

[Darios]

Ah, but the Libertarian Alliance is linked to some very dodgy right wing organisations including British United Industrialists, the IEA, the Freedom Association and even LM/RCP/Spiked/IoI.

Sources please? And define "linked". While you're at it also define "dodgy"

On edit - and the link to the LA site proves what exactly?

"Ah but those Anarcho-communist types are linked to some very dodgy left wing organisations like ALF and SHAC".

What this actually looks like to me is the continuing pattern of anarchists imposing "ideological purity". The only thing that has changed or developed in anarchist praxis the last century that I've noticed is the range and type of tactics used for civil disobedience.

In terms of ideology, theory, philosophy and concepts, as far as I can see, anarchism is floating on dead wood getting on for two centuries old and has become an utterly dogmatic and increasingly irrelevant set of doctrines. The fact that this kind of ideological purity is enforced is about as ironically opposed to the spirit of anarchism as I thought possible and thus it has become yet another domain on "the left" of splitting and in-fighting.

At one of the meetings held at the bookfair last year there was a clearly expressed astonishment and frustration at the fact that anarchism in the UK doesn't appear to be going anywhere or doing anything particularly effective.

It seems very obvious to me that this is largely a result of dogma, hypocrisy and irrelevance.

 

[nino_savatte]

Sources please? And define "linked". While you're at it also define "dodgy"

"Ah but those Anarcho-communist types are linked to some very dodgy left wing organisations like ALF and SHAC".

What this actually looks like to me is the continuing pattern of anarchists imposing "ideological purity". The only thing that has changed or developed in anarchist praxis the last century that I've noticed is the range and type of tactics used for civil disobedience.

In terms of ideology, theory, philosophy and concepts, as far as I can see, anarchism is floating on dead wood getting on for two centuries old and has become an utterly dogmatic and increasingly irrelevant set of doctrines. The fact that this kind of ideological purity is enforced is about as ironically opposed to the spirit of anarchism as I thought possible and thus it has become yet another domain on "the left" of splitting and in-fighting.

At one of the meetings held at the bookfair last year there was a clearly expressed astonishment and frustration at the fact that anarchism in the UK doesn't appear to be going anywhere or doing anything particularly effective.

It seems very obvious to me that this is largely a result of dogma, hypocrisy and irrelevance.

Didn't you see my link? What's your take on the Heritage Foundation, Darios?

The problem with your appraisal of anarchism is that it overlooks the fact that anarchism is not one single homogenised ideology. Indeed, there are many right wingers who would describe themselves as both anarchists and libertarians. The problem with these soi-disant anarchists is their connection to the very system that seeks to destroy human life; they support late western capitalism and do not appear to have any criticisms of it. Their desire is to create a system whereby capitalism flourishes unimpeded by such considerations as safety.

The Italian Futurists referred to themselves as "anarchists" but joined Mussolini's fascists. There is also National Anarchism, which, as the name suggests, is a fusion of extreme nationalism and anarchism.

I understand why the LA were thrown out: they are diametrically opposed to the left wing anarchists. If you allow the LA in, you'd have to let the National Anarchists have a stall too surely.

 

[Darios]

Didn't you see my link? What's your take on the Heritage Foundation, Darios?

Where is the link to it on the LA page? I'll ask again, what on earth does the LA link prove?

 

[nino_savatte]

Where is the link to it on the LA page? I'll ask again, what on earth does the LA link prove?

Are you being obtuse? Scroll down the page. The link proves what I've said about the LA.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is this better? Or would you like me to wipe your arse for you while I'm at it?

The Libertarian Alliance (LA) is a British libertarian think-tank that promotes free-market economics and civil liberties. According to its website, “The Libertarian Alliance is a non-partisan group fighting statism in all its forms and working for the creation of a truly free society.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Alliance

Please note the phrase "free market economics" and ask yourself how this squares with the 'other' anarchists.

 

[Darios]

Are you being obtuse? Scroll down the page. The link proves what I've said about the LA.

No you are.

What proves what you've said? I see lots and lots of links and articles, some of which look quite interesting and thought provoking.

You still haven't clearly stated your case either. Please give me the full skinny on The Libertarian Alliance, the Heritage Foundation etc.

 

[Darios]

Is this better? Or would you like me to wipe your arse for you while I'm at it?

Please note the phrase "free market economics" and ask yourself how this squares with the 'other' anarchists.

Please describe how an anarchist society would function without free market economics. I won't hold my breath.

p.s. did you miss the "fighting statism in all its forms and working for the creation of a truly free society."?

 

[nino_savatte]

No you are.

What proves what you've said? I see lots and lots of links and articles, some of which look quite interesting and thought provoking.

You still haven't clearly stated your case either. Please give me the full skinny on The Libertarian Alliance, the Heritage Foundation etc.

What? You want me to write you an essay? On your bike.

Just to repeat: Please note the phrase "free market economics" and ask yourself how this squares with the 'other' anarchists.

 

[nino_savatte]

Please describe how an anarchist society would function without free market economics. I won't hold my breath.

p.s. did you miss the "fighting statism in all its forms and working for the creation of a truly free society."?

How about you ask the anarchists on this forum that question? I'm not an anarchist.

So how does preserving the current system "fight statism"? This is what the LA and other r/w anarchists are 'fighting' for. Furthermore, how can rampant, unregulated western-style capitalism create a "truly free society"?

So here's another question: do CW or AF support free market capitalism?

 

[butchersapron]

I just found out that the Libertarian Alliance were (possibly forcibly?) removed from last year's Anarchist Bookfair.

The reason is, quote: "anger over the intrusion of members of ‘anarcho-capitalist’ group the Libertarian Alliance, whose politics significantly clash with the Bookfair’s ethos by promoting the retention of private property and business in an otherwise lawless society."

Were any of you advocating 'no platform' and violence-backed censorship for the BNP and their ilk on this thread party to this ejection?

You bunch of utter utter hypocrites.

Where's the hypocrisy then? Seems pretty consistent to me.

 

[Darios]

How about you ask the anarchists on this forum that question? I'm not an anarchist.

So how does preserving the current system "fight statism"? This is what the LA and other r/w anarchists are 'fighting' for. Furthermore, how can rampant, unregulated western-style capitalism create a "truly free society"?

This is the same tired disingenuous dogma that is repeated ad infinitum in response to some pretty hard questions that anarchists need to consider. (It doesn't matter whether you consider yourself an anarchist or not, you're the one presenting the arguments)

What on earth is anarchism aiming at other than about as an "unregulated" society as its possible to achieve?

 

[Darios]

Where's the hypocrisy then? Seems pretty consistent to me.

Torres, where is the consistency?

On the one hand anarchists (allegedly) seek to preserve and increase freedom, such as freedom of speech, plus have a strong belief in the ability of people to make the best decisions when left to their own devices. On the other, some anarchists take it upon themselves to censor the likes of the BNP (often with means backed by force), and thus not leave people free to form their own judgements. This is hypocrisy and dogma.

On the one hand anarchists (allegedly) seek inclusive debates, particularly inclusion of any and all philosophies consistent with no state and no hierarchy (as far as is possible). Yet some anarchists take it upon themselves to ostracise a group who propose that in such a society we would still be unequal to some degree and would most likely adopt some kind of free market economic organisation. This is hypocrisy and dogma.