# “No passaran!”



## e19896 (Jun 8, 2009)

The 65th anniversary of D Day was a great occasion for patriots to commemorate British soldiers who gave their lives to begin the defeat of Fascism in 1944. So why did you so called nationalistic patriots vote for the Hitler lovers in the BNP?

    • The BNP has avoided paying income tax and National Insurance contributions by pretending that some staff were self-employed.

    • Their 2007 party accounts failed their audit as several thousand pounds of expenditure was not properly recorded.

    • The EU elections offer the BNP a gravy train of over £2 million—how much will go to line their own pockets?

    • BNP leader Nick Griffin has strong links with David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, as well as many other neo-nazi groups around the world. Griffin is also cosying up with officials from a Hungarian fascist party, Jobbik. The party is strongly anti-Jewish and organises a private army of uniformed fascists.

    • In Barking & Dagenham, seven BNP councillors attended only 27% of meetings—but each still pocketed the full £9,810 allowance.
    • One BNP councillor in Sandwell attended no meetings at all for six months and was booted off the council—but he still took his allowance.

    And in the BNP’s own words…

    “What we urgently need, and must have to survive, is very much less democracy, a very much smaller, more carefully selected and more intelligent electorate … Granting a vote to each and every one of the natives of Britain was madness … lunacy could hardly go further!” (Internal BNP document)

        “No passaran!” was used in the Siege of Madrid during the Spanish Civil War by Dolores Ibárruri Gómez in her famous “No Pasarán” speech on 18 July 1936. “¡No pasarán!” became an international anti-fascist slogan (used by British protestors during the October 1936 Battle of Cable Street, for example), and is still used in this context in left wing political circles. It was often accompanied by the word pasaremos (we will pass). The right wing riposte to this slogan was “Hemos pasado” (”We have passed”) said by general Francisco Franco when his forces conquered Madrid.

        Block the BNP will be preventing Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons from taking their seats as MEPs If the people of Britain cannot be relied upon to prevent the BNP Facism in their communities then we will. On September 4th these loathsome individuals will attempt to enter the EU building in Brussels as MEP, Block the BNP will be there to stop them by any means we regard as reasonable.  Facism must be stopped. We will stop it.  If you want to join us contact for travel details info@antifa.org.uk http://www.antifa.org.uk


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> “No passaran!” was used in the Siege of Madrid during the Spanish Civil War by Dolores Ibárruri Gómez in her famous “No Pasarán” speech



?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 8, 2009)

Is this another one of his cut and pastes?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

Yeah


----------



## pk (Jun 8, 2009)

I too thought there was only one 's' in pasaran... anyone visiting South America will see it all over the place.


----------



## e19896 (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Yeah



The info used is from ANTIFA


----------



## Belushi (Jun 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The info used is from ANTIFA



You really should indicate where youre quoting other peoples words if you want people to take your posts seriously. I'm sure you've been told this before.


----------



## Random (Jun 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> If the people of Britain cannot be relied upon to prevent the BNP Facism in their communities then we will.


----------



## dylans (Jun 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> TIf the people of Britain cannot be relied upon to prevent the BNP Facism in their communities then we will.



Oh dear.

Sounds like something the R.A.F might have said.


----------



## sonny61 (Jun 8, 2009)

Well on a crap day, I must say this thread has made me laugh.
Lets get this right, antifa are going to Picket the EU buildings in Brussels to stop the two BNP MEPs taking up their seats?
What for the next five years?

Hate to remind you of this, but there has been fascists sitting as MEPs for years.
Not to mention the police over there of course will let antifa stop MEPs getting in, you think the British police are brutal.
Have you any idea how large the EU buildings are?
It would take tens of thousands to even attempt it, area antifa expecting that many to go over? Have antifa even got hundreds never mind thousands?
About forty in Manchester from what I could see on TV last night.

La la land, funny though.


----------



## e19896 (Jun 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well on a crap day, I must say this thread has made me laugh.
> Lets get this right, antifa are going to Picket the EU buildings in Brussels to stop the two BNP MEPs taking up their seats?
> What for the next five years?
> 
> ...



You are in the least not funny, so come on then what ideas do you have?
oh by the way it was UAF last night get it right..


----------



## JimPage (Jun 8, 2009)

Not wanting to fall out with the Antifa people, but think a little more introspection is needed here. 

No  Pasaran? They have already passed and will be in Europe until 2014


----------



## _pH_ (Jun 8, 2009)

Belushi said:


> You really should indicate where youre quoting other peoples words if you want people to take your posts seriously. I'm sure you've been told this before.



he/she has been asked, numerous times. but it's always fun googling an e-numbers post like this to see where it comes from. The lack of speeling mistakes and correct punctuation always gives it away


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well on a crap day, I must say this thread has made me laugh.
> Lets get this right, antifa are going to Picket the EU buildings in Brussels to stop the two BNP MEPs taking up their seats?
> What for the next five years?
> 
> ...



You seem to be implying that we should sit around and do nothing.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

pk said:


> I too thought there was only one 's' in pasaran... anyone visiting South America will see it all over the place.



In Catalan it's 'passaran', in Spanish it's 'pasaran'....not that it really matters because it's the spirit and content of the post that's the real issue here.


----------



## untethered (Jun 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Block the BNP will be preventing Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons from taking their seats as MEPs If the people of Britain cannot be relied upon to prevent the BNP Facism in their communities then we will.



I'm not a supporter of the BNP but if they've been fairly and democratically elected who are you to stop them taking their seats?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm not a supporter of the BNP but if they've been fairly and democratically elected who are you to stop them taking their seats?



Talk about disaffected... Oh! and I take it "we" means those of us who are white British - whatever the f*** that means!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> "we"



Eh?


----------



## untethered (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Talk about disaffected... Oh! and I take it "we" means those of us who are white British - whatever the f*** that means!



Have another go. I asked what right anyone has to prevent any democratically elected politician taking their seat.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Every right, when their ideology is based on hate!...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Every right, when their ideology is based on hate!...



a. who appointed you to do that?
b. on a purely practical level, how will you actually do that? They can keep coming back and the police can drive you out of the way.


----------



## untethered (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Every right, when their ideology is based on hate!...



How would that be democratic? I didn't notice any "except for people whose ideology is based on hate" clause on my ballot paper.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Eh?



Okay, I accept I misrepresented what you said, my apologies.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> you



Eh?


----------



## untethered (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> You seem to be implying that we should sit around and do nothing.



Sitting around and doing nothing is preferable to doing something stupid, harmful and ultimately futile.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> a. who appointed you to do that?
> b. on a purely practical level, how will you actually do that? They can keep coming back and the police can drive you out of the way.



A) No-one appointed me, but unless you can convince me otherwise, their ideology is one of xenophobia ie. hatred of 'foreigners'.

B) I don't for a moment think that the protest would be successful in preventing them from taking their seats, for the very reason you state, but if the social movements throughout history were to have adopted that attitude, then we'd have experienced little or no social change.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> A) No-one appointed me, but unless you can convince me otherwise, their ideology is one of xenophobia ie. hatred of 'foreigners'.
> 
> B) I don't for a moment think that the protest would be successful in preventing them from taking their seats, for the very reason you state, but if the social movements throughout history were to have adopted that attitude, then we'd have experienced little or no social change.



So the only practical effect will be to make you look like somebody who's entitled to deny the electorate their chosen candidate. Will that be helpful, do you think?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

untethered said:


> Sitting around and doing nothing is preferable to doing something stupid, harmful and ultimately futile.



What's stupid, harmful and futile, about taking to the streets to voice your opposition to fascism? This is what people did throughout the 20th century, or do you think that their actions were "stupid, harmful and ultimately futile"?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> What's stupid, harmful and futile, about taking to the streets to voice your opposition to fascism? This is what people did throughout the 20th century, or do you think that there actions were "stupid, harmful and ultimately futile"?



No. I do however think that they generally selected better-thought-out options than the one you're proposing.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> So the only practical effect will be to make you look like somebody who's entitled to deny the electorate their chosen candidate. Will that be helpful, do you think?



Yes, when the electorate are effectively saying I want a racist party in office. As for it being helpful, well at times like this it's important to show the strength of opposition there is in this country to racist political parties.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> As for it being helpful, well at times like this it's important to show the strength of opposition there is in this country to racist political parties.



I imagine the actual effect will be to show you haven't got much strength behind you at all.

Really, thinking things through is not an impediment to fighting fascism.


----------



## untethered (Jun 8, 2009)

Rather than taking your proposed action which is likely to lead to accusations of anti-democratic sentiment, how about this for a better idea? You need to do something dignified and poignant without taking any serious physical or political risks. You also need to be able to get near to the Parliament without arousing too much suspicion as it's likely that police will be watching for groups of obvious protesters.

So I think this particular action will call for suits and a generally smart appearance. When you get close to the Parliament door, form an orderly line. Then don black armbands to symbolise the death of democracy that the BNP represent. As Messrs. Griffin and Brons arrive, stand in silence and give them ironic roman salutes as they pass by. Sometimes it's better to understate things rather than over-egg the pudding.

Incidentally, do you support the EU, partyzan?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> No. I do however think that they generally selected better-thought-out options than the one you're proposing.



So you're saying they didn't get involved in street politics?...sorry but if you read up on your history you're definitely onto a losing wicket here my friend.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> So you're saying they didn't get involved in street politics?...sorry but if you read up on your history you're definitely onto a losing wicket here my friend.



No, I'm saying what I'm saying and not something completely different. Unless you think that all street politics are the same regardless of who's doing it and what they're proposing to achieve.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

untethered said:


> Rather than taking your proposed action which is likely to lead to accusations of anti-democratic sentiment, how about this for a better idea? You need to do something dignified and poignant without taking any serious physical or political risks. You also need to be able to get near to the Parliament without arousing too much suspicion as it's likely that police will be watching for groups of obvious protesters.
> 
> So I think this particular action will call for suits and a generally smart appearance. When you get close to the Parliament door, form an orderly line. Then don black armbands to symbolise the death of democracy that the BNP represent. As Messrs. Griffin and Brons arrive, stand in silence and give them ironic roman salutes as they pass by. Sometimes it's better to understate things rather than over-egg the pudding.
> 
> Incidentally, do you support the EU, partyzan?



Yes...a poignant symbolic gesture, I agree. But how much media attention would that get, if at all! Several thousand people in a militant protest, on the other hand, would make far more of an impact.

In answer to your question, I agree with the sentiments and politics of internationalism.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Several thousand people in a militant protest, on the other hand, would make far more of an impact.



Do you have several thousand people ready to accompany you? And if you did, what kind of impact do you think it would have?


----------



## untethered (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Yes...a poignant symbolic gesture, I agree. But how much media attention would that get, if at all!



More than you might expect.



partyzan said:


> In answer to your question, I agree with the sentiments and politics of internationalism.



That doesn't answer my question at all, does it?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> I imagine the actual effect will be to show you haven't got much strength behind you at all.
> 
> Really, thinking things through is not an impediment to fighting fascism.



Well this would depend on how many people get involved and the nature and mood of the proposed action.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Well this would depend on how many people get involved and the nature and mood of the proposed action.



Well, I would strongly advise against carrying out this particular action without sufficient support, because you'll look like idiots: or with sufficient support, because you'll look worse.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

untethered said:


> More than you might expect.



It wouldn't get the same amount of media attention, but I don't disagree with that kind of protest in the slightest.



untethered said:


> That doesn't answer my question at all, does it?



I didn't think it would....but will you let me plead the fifth on this one?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Well, I would strongly advise against carrying out this particular action without sufficient support, because you'll look like idiots: or with sufficient support, because you'll look worse.



Sorry DF, but your post was a little confusing towards the end...but you're right, without sufficient support, it would be futile...as for labelling anyone who attending as 'idiots' then I'd consider that disrespectful. After all they would be there to oppose the far-right, and they will always get my support.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> After all they would be there to oppose the far-right, and they will always get my support.



But not necessarily anybody else's.

It is, I think, a particularly good time for people to keep their heads.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> But not necessarily anybody else's.
> 
> It is, I think, a particularly good time for people to keep their heads.



But sometimes the most progressive attitudes in society are held by the minority, and 'keeping our heads' can allow that which is 'bad' to go unchallenged.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jun 8, 2009)

Of course. And of course anything can be described as counterproductive and you never know for sure what the effect of anything will be. But this particular action doesn't strike me as the wisest.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Of course. And of course anything can be described as counterproductive and you never know for sure what the effect of anything will be. But this particular action doesn't strike me as the wisest.



Okay, but you gotta keep the pressure on, surely?


----------



## tim (Jun 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The 65th anniversary of D Day was a great occasion for patriots to commemorate British soldiers who gave their lives to begin the defeat of Fascism in 1944. So why did you so called nationalistic patriots vote for the Hitler lovers in the BNP?
> 
> .................................................................................
> 
> ...




You seem to share the BNP's attitude towards normal people. You come across as unpleasantly authoritarian, and like them a bit of a throwback to the 1930's


----------



## partyzan (Jun 8, 2009)

tim said:


> You seem to share the BNP's attitude towards normal people. You come across as unpleasantly authoritarian, and like them a bit of a throwback to the 1930's



So to oppose anything that the majority are in favour of, no matter how vile and reprehensible, would, according to your post, be authoritarian?


----------



## tim (Jun 8, 2009)

partyzan said:


> So to oppose anything that the majority are in favour of, no matter how vile and reprehensible, would, according to your post, be authoritarian?




THe BNP ,of course, did not get the suppport of the "majority"; they got the support of about 10% of the vote in two regions and less in the rest of the country, in a European election. We are therefore not on the verge of a Fascist takeover, this is not Spain, Germany or Italy in the 1930's.

Your plans are to (if you are successful) to use force to stop two people (albeit Nazis) who were elected democratically from taking their seats in the European parliament, trying to undermine, an udoubtedly flawed, democratic process.  They, the BNP,are quite willing to use similar tactics when they want, but what do you intend to achieve by aping them. Are your arguments so feeble that you don't feel capable of trouncing the BNP in open debate. I have no love of fascists and NeoNazis, but no liking either of those who, spouting leftist platitudes use force to impose their opinions on others.

Your romantic-nostalgic posturing will be in itself futile, they'll get into that building whatever you do. It will be propfoundly undemocratic and will be used them in their own propoganda offensive against their opponents.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Not to mention the police over there of course will let antifa stop MEPs getting in, you think the British police are brutal.



I would seriously think twice about taking the piss out of Brussels cops I saw them in action yesterday evening. They had just arrested two <insert ethnicity according to prejudicial taste> shoplifters in the supermarket. As they got to the cop van one of them gave the older cop some lip. He grabbed hold of their hair and smashed their heads together with a sound like a well struck plant in snooker. The younger shoplifter (maybe 16?) then threw up over his mate and they got slung in the van.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 13, 2009)

tim said:


> THe BNP ,of course, did not get the suppport of the "majority"; they got the support of about 10% of the vote in two regions and less in the rest of the country, in a European election. We are therefore not on the verge of a Fascist takeover, this is not Spain, Germany or Italy in the 1930's..



I am aware of this and I don't think that I implied anything else to the contrary, I was merely pointing out the problems of the rationale of your argument.

And of course we live in a different set of circumstances to that of Europe in the 30s, but that doesn't mean we can't achieve some understanding of the issues surrounding the rise of contemporary fascist movements and how they were opposed, by examining similar historical events.



tim said:


> *Your *plans are to (if *you *are successful) to use force to stop two people (albeit Nazis) who were elected democratically from taking their seats in the European parliament, trying to undermine, an udoubtedly flawed, democratic process.  They, the BNP,are quite willing to use similar tactics when they want, but what do *you* intend to achieve by aping them. Are *your* arguments so feeble that you don't feel capable of trouncing the BNP in open debate. I have no love of fascists and NeoNazis, but no liking either of those who, spouting leftist platitudes use force to impose their opinions on others..



They aren't _my_ plans or _my_ arguments - I didn't post the thread! But I do support the mobilisation.

But either way, adopting a liberal stance of only opposing the far-right through debate, fails to take account of the real threat they pose at a local level, in terms of the propensity for racist attacks to increase in areas where they have made electoral gains.




tim said:


> *Your *romantic-nostalgic posturing will be in itself futile, they'll get into that building whatever *you* do. It will be propfoundly undemocratic and will be used them in their own propoganda offensive against their opponents.



Once again it's not _me_!!! And I don't know where you get the _romantic-nostalgic posturing _ from...I wouldn't have thought there's anything at all romantic about risking arrest or injury when participating in this type of protest. As for it being undemocratic, well I think it might be worth considering this:

_"It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph'!_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2009)

Belushi said:


> You really should indicate where youre quoting other peoples words if you want people to take your posts seriously. I'm sure you've been told this before.


if this is who i think it is that we're talking about, if a sentence makes sense he's taken it from somewhere else.


----------



## cesare (Jun 13, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> if this is who i think it is that we're talking about, if a sentence makes sense he's taken it from somewhere else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2009)

cesare said:


>


that's my reaction to his posts too.


----------



## cesare (Jun 13, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> that's my reaction to his posts too.





It is who you think it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2009)

yeh i've seen him posting elsewhere.


----------



## cesare (Jun 13, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> yeh i've seen him posting elsewhere.



yep


----------



## JHE (Jun 13, 2009)

Is Picky the same Picky as picked before?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2009)

the original and best


----------



## JHE (Jun 13, 2009)

Welcome back, then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2009)

cheers!


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 13, 2009)

untethered said:


> Have another go. I asked what right anyone has to prevent any democratically elected politician taking their seat.



This could easily be an argument about the legitimacy of electoral politics. It wouldn't be productive though.

The real question is practical and tactical. Can this actually be done, would it achieve anything if it was done? If you don't think it's achievable then do you think the fact of some people trying to do it, being seen to try would have any affect, would it be a positive one?

Asking myself those questions leads me to conclude it's a bad idea.


----------



## berniedicters (Jun 13, 2009)

Belushi said:


> You really should indicate where youre quoting other peoples words if you want people to take your posts seriously. I'm sure you've been told this before.


Well, I've only mentioned it to him about a dozen times, and it prompted a bit of a hissy fit then...


----------



## newbie (Jun 13, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> the original and best



Respect collapses and pm come back.

all good


----------



## moon23 (Jun 13, 2009)

There is nothing undemocratic against protesting against the BNP on the streets using violence or violent language like 'smash the BNP' grants the facists a propaganda victory. Just doing nothing or trying to win a debate against them is hopeless it just gives them a platform. They dont follow rational arguments. We need peaceful protests to show our opposition but more importantly we need to engage with politics and ensure we together tackle the causes of racism


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2009)

partyzan said:


> But either way, adopting a liberal stance of only opposing the far-right through debate, fails to take account of the real threat they pose at a local level, in terms of the propensity for racist attacks to increase in areas where they have made electoral gains.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 'romantic-nostalic' comment reflects that you (and your chums) clearly see yourself as latter day 19th century Romantic heroes, wannabe Byrons and Shelley's. as to the Burke quote, I think it's trumped by the Voltaire.


----------



## the button (Jun 13, 2009)

tim said:


> as to the Burke quote, I think it's trumped by the Voltaire.



Which Voltaire? 



> As a result of a hierarchy of nations, Negroes are thus slaves of other men ... a people that sells its own children is more condemnable than the buyer; this commerce demonstrates our superiority; he who gives himself a master was born to have one.


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2009)

the button said:


> Which Voltaire?



Oh, dear clearly not 'that' Voltaire. I was thinking he 'nice' wishy-washy  liberal




> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.



Voltaire.

A quote which I have rediscovered/ been assisted in remembering is not actually authentic, but was invented for him at the start of the last century.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 13, 2009)

tim said:


> The 'romantic-nostalic' comment reflects that you (and your chums) clearly see yourself as latter day 19th century Romantic heroes, wannabe Byrons and Shelley's. as to the Burke quote, I think it's trumped by the Voltaire.



I'm sorry I really must be missing something here, but you haven't provided the slightest shred of evidence to support this extremely bold assertion!...but if i get the gist of the basis for your insult, which is what I think it's meant to be, then surely you're a century out, aren't you, cos my romanticised heroes, if I'm forced to have any, which I'm sure would make you feel so much better, are the likes of Durutti and Makhnov!

Honestly dude you really do need to chill a bit....as I'm not at all averse to being constructively challenged over my posts!


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2009)

partyzan said:


> I'm sorry I really must be missing something here, but you haven't provided the slightest shred of evidence to support this extremely bold assertion!...but if i get the gist of the basis for your insult, which is what I think it's meant to be, then surely you're a century out, aren't you, cos my romanticised heroes, if I'm forced to have any, which I'm sure would make you feel so much better, are the likes of Durutti and Makhnov!
> 
> Honestly dude you really do need to chill a bit....as I'm not at all averse to being constructively challenged over my posts!



You clearly have missed something, my references are to the idea of the "Romantic hero" as outlined here. 

Mahkhanov and Durutti at least were in  situations where ,however fruitlessly, they could adopt such a role. There is a difference between participating in the Russian revolution or the Spanish civil war and chucking a few eggs at Nick the Nazi in a Brussells car park and then getting a kicking from some Belgian plods. The latter is rather pointless and rather counterproductive.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

tim said:


> You clearly have missed something, my references are to the idea of the "Romantic hero" as outlined here.
> 
> Mahkhanov and Durutti at least were in  situations where ,however fruitlessly, they could adopt such a role. There is a difference between participating in the Russian revolution or the Spanish civil war and chucking a few eggs at Nick the Nazi in a Brussells car park and then getting a kicking from some Belgian plods. The latter is rather pointless and rather counterproductive.



But I wasn't using Durutti or Makhnov to justify the demo!!! This is kinda' going around in circles a little bit. The point of the demo is quite simply to oppose fascism, and okay people may think the strategy of it is flawed, but essentially it's a protest against a political movement that is premised on an ideology of hate and social division. You might not agree with this, but the threat of the BNP is very real to many people from minority ethnic groups, especially those living in communities blighted by racist violence. It might be a few eggs but it's a political statement in the same way as standing up to the cops who'll be protecting them.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> But I wasn't using Durutti or Makhnov to justify the demo!!! This is kinda' going around in circles a little bit. The point of the demo is quite simply to oppose fascism, and okay people may think the strategy of it is flawed, but essentially it's a protest against a political movement that is premised on an ideology of hate and social division. You might not agree with this, but the threat of the BNP is very real to many people from minority ethnic groups, especially those living in communities blighted by racist violence. It might be a few eggs but it's a political statement in the same way as standing up to the cops who'll be protecting them.



Is it about opposing fascism or about grandstanding? If you want to oppose the BNP go out on the streetsand out argue them. How is trying to stop them going through a door in Brussels going to help those threatened by BNP violence and intimidation back here in Britain. 

As to standing up to the cops who'll be "protecting them", well they'll only be there protecting "them" because you and your friends are proposing to attack "them". Creating a situation that gives Englishmiddle class wannabe heroes an excuse to attack working class foreign cops.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

tim said:


> Is it about opposing fascism or about grandstanding? If you want to oppose the BNP go out on the streetsand out argue them. How is trying to stop them going through a door in Brussels going to help those threatened by BNP violence and intimidation back here in Britain.



But like I've said before opposition takes many forms, whether it be picketing in Brussels or challenging their arguments on the streets of Stoke. They all serve a different purpose.




tim said:


> As to standing up to the cops who'll be "protecting them", well they'll only be there protecting "them" because *you and your friends* are proposing to attack "them".



Once again it's not ME or MY friends!!!! I am merely putting an argument across in support of the planned action, and if I'm correct I don't remember seeing any reference to advocating physical violence. 



tim said:


> Creating a situation that gives* Englishmiddle class wannabe heroes *an excuse to attack working class foreign cops.



Once again you're making sweeping generalisations as I think you'll find that the anti-fascist movement is made up of people from a cross section of society...and the last thing that most people would want is a showdown with the police, but sometimes civil disobedience, such as sit-ins, pickets or occupations are necessary, the problem is whether the actions of the police inflame the situation - as to whether they're working class or not, seems to be irrelevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

It doesn't matter - the argument, because this daft kneejerk nonsense isn't going to happen, expect as possible nice weekednd away for a few bods. 

Defend the EU from fascists indeed!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't matter - the argument, because this daft kneejerk nonsense isn't going to happen, expect as possible nice weekednd away for a few bods.
> 
> Defend the EU from fascists indeed!



Might I suggest you and try and barricade them all once they are in there, or build an identical EU building to trick them into.


----------



## berniedicters (Jun 14, 2009)

moon23 said:


> There is nothing undemocratic against protesting against the BNP on the streets using violence or violent language like 'smash the BNP' grants the facists a propaganda victory. Just doing nothing or trying to win a debate against them is hopeless it just gives them a platform. They dont follow rational arguments. We need peaceful protests to show our opposition but more importantly we need to engage with politics and ensure we together tackle the causes of racism


OK, so there's nothing undemocratic about violent protest against the BNP. So what about violent protest against, say, the SWP? Or perhaps UKIP? Or New Labour?

Who gets to decide when violent protest is democratic, and when - as it surely must be if we're effectively saying that it's always a valid form of political expression - it becomes undemocratic?

And how is _that_ distinction democratically determined?

I think the point of democracy is that the BNP *is* entitled to a platform. They are allowed to express their views, within the constraints of our existing legal system. There are things they're not allowed to do, but those are a matter of legality, not democracy.

One of the BNP's best recruiting sergeants at the moment is "you, the poor oppressed indigenous white working class, we feel your pain". They can point at how _they_ aren't allowed to express their views either, and how this means that they are the natural party to represent someone who no longer feels represented by his traditional political group - presumably Labour. They tone down their racist language in carefully-worded leaflets, and because they're so rarely ever to be seen on TV or in public engaging spontaneously with the media (or the people), those weasel words are able to be the nice face of the racist nationalists.

Ultimately, I think that is going to make the BNP a worse problem. People _will_ start voting for them because they see them as the underdog, regardless of what their political goals might be. My guess is that most, if not all, of the BNP's elected representatives are there for such reasons, rather than because such a substantial proportion of the electorate subscribe to the same white supremacist views they hold. We're playing into their hands. We should be letting them damn themselves out of their own mouths - be seen to be scrupulously fair to them in ensuring that they have a platform on which to speak...and scrupulously fairly challenging them on the inconsistencies and vaguenesses of their policies, of which there are many, to the point that they repeatedly humiliate themselves publicly.

What are we actually scared of about letting them speak? Do we have such a disdain for the voters who listen to them that we must cover their ears for their own protection?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 14, 2009)

I tried to make the differeance between violent and non-violent protest clear. I meant people have a right to non violent protest against the BNP. some people think even this form of protest is undemocratic as they won an election.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 14, 2009)

The argument is giving the BNP a platform allows them a chance to spread thier views. Allowing them to speak and then attacking thier arguments may work but if they start gaining a foothold on the streets in working class communties they will spread thier views further.


----------



## Sue (Jun 14, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Allowing them to speak and then attacking thier arguments may work but if they start gaining a foothold on the streets in working class communties they will spread thier views further.



More than 50 local councillors and two MEPs would suggest that they've already gained a foothold.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 14, 2009)

Yes it would Sue but by in large not on the streets apart from in a few locations.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

wtf does this 'on the street' nonsense mean? They've gained their foothold in pubs, in clubs, in peoples homes, at work, at the football and so on. 'On the streets' - what a meaningless militant sounding empty phrase.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Ultimately, I think that is going to make the BNP a worse problem. People _will_ start voting for them because they see them as the underdog, regardless of what their political goals might be. My guess is that most, if not all, of the BNP's elected representatives are there for such reasons, rather than because such a substantial proportion of the electorate subscribe to the same white supremacist views they hold.



I agree that the vast majority of BNP voters are not necessarily white supremacists, but they are most definitely racist and xenophobic, and as such have the potential to be persuaded to develop more hardline views depending on the success of the BNP and the extent to which they are involved in the lives of the communities in which they gain they support.



agnesdavies said:


> We're playing into their hands. We should be letting them damn themselves out of their own mouths - be seen to be scrupulously fair to them in ensuring that they have a platform on which to speak...and scrupulously fairly challenging them on the inconsistencies and vaguenesses of their policies, of which there are many, to the point that they repeatedly humiliate themselves publicly.



But this still allows them the 'oxygen of publicity', and this is linked to a rise in racist attacks in the areas in which they canvass.



agnesdavies said:


> What are we actually scared of about letting them speak? Do we have such a disdain for the voters who listen to them that we must cover their ears for their own protection?



Unfortunately the BNP's politics of xenephobia makes it far easier for a lot of people to understand the complex problems they face especially in terms of unemployment, housing, welfare etc - it simplifies the causes and solutions to a problem - and this is exactly why their propaganda is dangerous.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes it would Sue but by in large not on the streets apart from in a few locations.



I think the amount of support they have in Stoke, where they were apparently close to controlling the Council, just shows how much of a threat they are, and also how successful they have become as a political organisation.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> wtf does this 'on the street' nonsense mean? They've gained their foothold in pubs, in clubs, in peoples homes, at work, at the football and so on. 'On the streets' - what a meaningless militant sounding empty phrase.


 By that phrase, I mean as you say in the communtity, and sadly your right they are gaining a good foothold. Rather than directing so much hostilility perhaps you and sue could come up with a list of practical things people could do. Chances are people may already be doing these things but it would be helpfull.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2009)

moon23 said:


> By that phrase, I mean as you say in the communtity, and sadly your right they are gaining a good foothold. Rather than directing so much hostilility perhaps you and sue could come up with a list of practical things people could do. Chances are people may already be doing these things but it would be helpfull.



How about a Labour government that insread of chasing the middle-class marginal constituency votes starts addressing the social and economic needs of people who live in places like Stoke the Pennine towns and Dagenham. Give people a decent standard of living and the belief that they have a future


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> We should be letting them damn themselves out of their own mouths - be seen to be scrupulously fair to them in ensuring that they have a platform on which to speak...and scrupulously fairly challenging them on the inconsistencies and vaguenesses of their policies, of which there are many, to the point that they repeatedly humiliate themselves publicly.
> 
> What are we actually scared of about letting them speak? Do we have such a disdain for the voters who listen to them that we must cover their ears for their own protection?


you seem to miss that this has already been tried - and failed.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

tim said:


> How about a Labour government that insread of chasing the middle-class marginal constituency votes starts addressing the social and economic needs of people who live in places like Stoke the Pennine towns and Dagenham. Give people a decent standard of living and the belief that they have a future



....or arguaby, why don't the people in these areas stop blaming people from minority groups for their problems! Because what you're effectively saying is that the only cure for racism is to tackle socio-economic deprivation, which takes the responsibility away from individuals to challenge their own bigotted and chauvinistic attitudes. The problem with racism, it doesn't go away, it merely manifests itself in different ways, and becomes more apparent during times of social and economic adversity!


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> ....or arguaby, why don't the people in these areas stop blaming people from minority groups for their problems! Because what you're effectively saying is that the only cure for racism is to tackle socio-economic deprivation, which takes the responsibility away from individuals to challenge their own bigotted and chauvinistic attitudes. The problem with racism, it doesn't go away, it merely manifests itself in different ways, and becomes more apparent during times of social and economic adversity!





Fine words from someone who thinks that the BNP can be defeated by stopping them entering the European parliament. What I'm daying that is that people turn to parties like the BNP because they've been failed by the other parties. Whether you like it or not bigotry and chauvinism thrive in situations of injustice if you don't tackle those problems you will achieve little.

Your a bit of a pseudoanarchist if you think that actually changing society is less important than shouting slogans


----------



## mauvais (Jun 14, 2009)

Sir wheat! Pickmans is backk!


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

tim said:


> Fine words from someone who thinks that the BNP can be defeated by stopping them entering the European parliament.



LMFAO...please, I beg you direct me to where I said or maybe even implied this. Why must you persist in either misrepresenting or misinterpreting my posts?



tim said:


> What I'm daying that is that people turn to parties like the BNP because they've been failed by the other parties. Whether you like it or not bigotry and chauvinism thrive in situations of injustice if you don't tackle those problems you will achieve little.



Unfortunately bigotry and chauvimism is always present in society, not just in times of adversity, it's just the extent and nature of it that varies. So would you agree that the people who voted BNP are racist?



tim said:


> Your a bit of a pseudoanarchist if you think that actually changing society is less important than shouting slogans



Please don't even try and pigeon hole me politically, cos believe me you wouldn't even come close to getting it right.

And as for shouting slogans, well sometimes you have to do this to get your point across, but it's hardly the be all and end all.....but once again you seem to be making all manner of totally incorrect assumptions about my perspectives on this issue - shame on you!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> So would you agree that the people who voted BNP are racist?



They're not all racist.  This is a stupid pov.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 14, 2009)

And what's more, since the BNP have toned down their rhetoric there's a fair few people out there who believe the BNP aren't racist either.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> They're not all racist.  This is a stupid pov.



So you honestly believe that most, if not all, the people who voted for them have no idea whatsoever of their immigration policies...and didn't have the slightest sympathy for prioritising the rights of the 'indigenous' population (whatever the f*** that means) over that of minority ethnic groups. You really need to wake up and smell the coffee my friend, because it's quite simply this total lack of understanding of the issue of racism that prevents us from effectively tackling the problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

You are a proper moron. Challenge racism. Ok done. BNP vote =?


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> But like I've said before opposition takes many forms, whether it be picketing in Brussels or challenging their arguments on the streets of Stoke. They all serve a different purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From the link you posted




> PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION
> 
> Antifa is a continuation of the antifascist tradition of confronting fascism physically when it is necessary.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

wtf is your argument as well? You're as all over the shop as him/her


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

tim said:


> From the link you posted



I haven't posted a link...you're confusing me with whoever started the thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> So you honestly believe that most, if not all, the people who voted for them have no idea whatsoever of their immigration policies...and didn't have the slightest sympathy for prioritising the rights of the 'indigenous' population (whatever the f*** that means) over that of minority ethnic groups. You really need to wake up and smell the coffee my friend, because it's quite simply this total lack of understanding of the issue of racism that prevents us from effectively tackling the problem.



I don't know about most, but I do know about all.  One person I know voted BNP a couple of years ago.  She's not racist.  Misinformed about the nature of the BNP, but certainly not racist.  I bet there's loads more like her.

You need to "wake up and smell the coffee" mate.  Maybe start listening to the grievances people have rather than labelling them as racist.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You are a proper moron. Challenge racism. Ok done. BNP vote =?



I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, well aprt from the compliment!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, well aprt from the compliment!



Pointing out that the BNP are racist hasn't exactly worked has it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

You really don't do you partyzan?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I don't know about most, but I do know about all.  One person I know voted BNP a couple of years ago.  She's not racist.  Misinformed about the nature of the BNP, but certainly not racist.  I bet there's loads more like her.
> 
> You need to "wake up and smell the coffee" mate.  Maybe start listening to the grievances people have rather than labelling them as racist.



I don't think I suggested for a moment that socio-economic problems weren't an issue. My point was that we should also look at the racism that is ever present in society, and not be afraid to challenge people over racist attitudes.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> I don't think I suggested for a moment that socio-economic problems weren't an issue. My point was that we should also look at the racism that is ever present in society, and not be afraid to challenge people over racist attitudes.



I agree.

What has that got to do with the issue at hand?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

You (prtyzan) suggested that it was racism as the driving fact, not those conditions. _*Exactly*_ back to front.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> I haven't posted a link...you're confusing me with whoever started the thread.



Sorry the link to the site whose actions you "support"


If you do actually bother reading itheir website, you'll see it mostly focuses on glorifying attacks on BNP members and or their property, and slagging of the Swappies and groups linked with them. The latter are clearly the wrong sort of anti-fascists.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You (prtyzan) suggested that it was racism as the driving fact, not those conditions. _*Exactly*_ back to front.



Yes, racism is always there, and it is exacerbated by socio-economic problems.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

Yes, they are tim. And?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Yes, racism is always there, and it is exacerbated by socio-economic problems.



wtf is this empty half-hearted drivel meant to mean? Look, i like the fact you're all up for doing something anti-fash and that, but that doesn't mean everything with that intention is good. If you're that concerned it means doing stuff other than this.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> wtf is this empty half-hearted drivel meant to mean? Look, i like the fact you're all up for doing something anti-fash and that, but that doesn't mean everything with that intention is good. If you're that concerned it means doing stuff other than this.



ffs we're on the same side here....tbh, the argument has now gone way off thread anyway, which is probably partly my fault, and besides these issues are being discussed on other threads.

But the half-hearted drivel, as you put it, was merely a response to clarify my point.

So what other stuff do you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2009)

The stuff that atacks the conditions that give rise to the far right vote - the shit conditions many people live in, the bread and butter as blagsta put it - *that's anti-fascism today* , not these stupid fucking games designed to shore up the staus quo or penn sheep into the SWP.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> The stuff that atacks the conditions that give rise to the far right vote - the shit conditions many people live in, the bread and butter as blagsta put it - *that's anti-fascism today* , not these stupid fucking games designed to shore up the staus quo or penn sheep into the SWP.


 Yes bread and butter politics is the most effective counter. Doing something like forming a support group of the unemployed for instance. grandstanding against the BNP is worthless unless its backed up to show we are the friends of ordinary people not the facists.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Thats where the SWP go wrong they are all about the protest and the selling of papers but how often do you see them doing positive good in the communtity ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thats where the SWP go wrong they are all about the protest and the selling of papers but how often do you see them doing positive good in the communtity ?


the swp? positive good? never!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> the swp? positive good? never!


Case in point the orthodox left are no longer seen to work for ordinary peoples interests whilst the facist are gaining support and portraying themselves as standing up for them. Ironicaly  in part by adopting many anti-capitalist polices. You can easily imagine the facists organising a graffiti clean up pulling that sort of trick is winning them votes. The progressive left needs to get out there and offer an alternative support system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thats where the SWP go wrong they are all about the protest and the selling of papers but how often do you see them doing positive good in the communtity ?



That's not what the Swappies are there for. What they're there for is to keep churning membership and selling papers so that come the glorious revolution the Central Committee can take their rightful place governing the revolutionary masses.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's not what the Swappies are there for. What they're there for is to keep churning membership and selling papers so that come the glorious revolution the Central Committee can take their rightful place governing the revolutionary masses.



*bangs head against wall* sadly true


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thats where the SWP go wrong they are all about the protest and the selling of papers but how often do you see them doing positive good in the communtity ?



They do a lot of union work, the defend council housing campaign was SWP etc.  They're not my cup of tea, but neither is sectarianism.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> They do a lot of union work, the defend council housing campaign was SWP etc.  They're not my cup of tea, but neither is sectarianism.



Yes we probably are in danger of getting sidetracked into a sectarian argument here. I agree they do some good stuff, and i'm happy to work with SWP as with any other non-facist organisations (even right-wing libetarians as you are aware) to try and find a consentual way forward. 

My point that which has been raised elsewhere to some extent on these boards:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=291816

The Left needs to work harder at engaging with and fighting for the views of our national underclass. That doesn't like the BNP say mean kicking out any 'other' but as you say fighting for bread and butter issues.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

I think your joint working with free market capitalists (lets call them what they are) is dumb.  There is no common ground.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I think your joint working with free market capitalists (lets call them what they are) is dumb.  There is no common ground.



Actually there is common ground to be found amongst all humans if you try and look hard enougth, even if that common ground is simply fear. 

 It's possible I belive even to work together with capitalists, and especially on pan global issues such as climate change and opposing fascism.

On the political compass there are many libertarian capitalists who strongly oppose fascism, they just have a different way of trying to fight it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Defend this sytenms against the fascists! Defend Oxford, defend the queen, defend partliament, defend democracy, defend capitalism!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Yes paradoxicaly the establishment has a vested interest in maintaining its own much milder form of facisism against the BNP


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

The establishment doesn't give a shit about the BNP -they're no threat whatsoever  - apart from a allowing them to adopt a defend us nice politicians agianst the nasty ones. These are the lines athat are being written in the sand today. This wishy washy hold hands with the people who've fucked things up because they're not fornmally racist approach has to go - and sharpish. NJ more defending those who attack us.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I say paradoxicaly because it also creates the conditions in which facisin can emerge which is why we must seek to reform it whilst also on occasions working with it. Remember it was the industrial might of our establishment that defeated nazisism a threat to its own vested interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes paradoxicaly the establishment has a vested interest in maintaining its own much milder form of facisism against the BNP



You defend this sytems against the fascists! Defend Oxford, defend the queen, defend partliament, defend democracy, defend capitalism! see how far you're going to get. I think recent votes have been the most eleoquent commentater on this approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I say paradoxicaly because it also creates the conditions in which facisin can emerge which is why we must seek to reform it whilst also on occasions working with it. Remember it was the industrial might of our establishment that defeated nazisism a threat to its own vested interests.



It was that same system that produced fascism. At least you're explicit in being for a pro-status quo approach.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Im not pro status-quo just willing to work with the establishment some of who had parents and family killed in the holocaust and care passionatly about stopping the BNP


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Then you're a lib-dem mug.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Then you're a lib-dem mug.



I dont belong to any party though I think the Lib-Dems are a progressive force in politics even if they often sacrifice too much to try and get near the levers of power


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

And?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Then you're a lib-dem mug.



Are you so intent on marginalising yourself that you are willing to offend all Liberal Democrats ? Come on these are all people some of which may have some good ideas about fighting facisism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Along what lines?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Along what lines?


Explain im not sure what you are asking now


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm asking you to explain what good ideas lib-dems might have about fighting fascsim today that aren't pro-status quo.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I'm asking you to explain what good ideas lib-dems might have about fighting fascsim today that aren't pro-status quo.



I said they may have good ideas, point is they should not be written off. Currently they are supporting UAF status quo apporach but give them time to think about it. I know a local group is going to go door to door in attempt to understand why people are voting BNP and to counter it. Not saying thats great but neither is throwing eggs


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I have lib dems on my FB status saying how we need a new strategy other than protests so im hopeful they are thinking about these same issues we are discussing on urban


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Actually there is common ground to be found amongst all humans if you try and look hard enougth, even if that common ground is simply fear.
> 
> It's possible I belive even to work together with capitalists, and especially on pan global issues such as climate change and opposing fascism.
> 
> On the political compass there are many libertarian capitalists who strongly oppose fascism, they just have a different way of trying to fight it.



liberal


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Sectarian  I am liberal yes.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Sectarian  I am liberal yes.



Not an anarchist then.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Not an anarchist then.



An anarcho-liberal who thinks there is a need for grass roots democratic organisations to oppose state and corporate monopolies. Hence why Im an active trade unionist as I think free markets are a good thing so long as they are actively  partially opposed to mitigate against thier worse aspects in a balanced conflict of interest. This thread is getting a bit moon focused


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Anarcho-moron.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> An anarcho-liberal who thinks there is a need for grass roots democratic organisations to oppose state and corporate monopolies. Hence why Im an active trade unionist as I think free markets are a good thing so long as they are actively  partially opposed to mitigate against thier worse aspects in a balanced conflict of interest. This thread is getting a bit moon focused



not an anarchist then.  A liberal.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

The point is we cant be dogmatic in fighting facisism we need a new approach and we should not exclude people who might be of use. Im advocating unitity thats all


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Well you can fuck off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> An anarcho-liberal who thinks there is a need for grass roots democratic organisations to oppose state and corporate monopolies. Hence why Im an active trade unionist as I think free markets are a good thing so long as they are actively  partially opposed to mitigate against thier worse aspects in a balanced conflict of interest. This thread is getting a bit moon focused


freemarkets that are actively partially opposed to mitigate against their worse aspects? are you familiar with the term 'oxymoron'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The point is we cant be dogmatic in fighting facisism we need a new approach and we should not exclude people who might be of use. Im advocating unitity thats all


unity on whose platform? eh? fuck your 'unitity'!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Im not pro status-quo just willing to work with the establishment some of who had parents and family killed in the holocaust and care passionatly about stopping the BNP


people who had parents and (other) family killed in the holocaust do not necessarily have top politics, or politics capable of doing more than sounding off against the bnp. their membership of the establishment gives them a rather vested interest in the status quo ante, and i for one have little interest working with people who simply want their interests shored up and have no concern for the creation of a better world.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> not an anarchist then.  A liberal.



If you say so, its a semantic point unless there is an official definition of anarchism which would seem paradoxical to me. I feel like you are trying to pigeon hole my politics when we probably agree on a lot and could be working in a more constructive discourse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> If you say so, its a semantic point unless there is an official definition of anarchism which would seem paradoxical to me. I feel like you are trying to pigeon hole my politics when we probably agree on a lot and could be working in a more constructive discourse.


you don't need an 'official' definition of anarchism to know it is a different creature from liberalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> If you say so, its a semantic point unless there is an official definition of anarchism which would seem paradoxical to me. I feel like you are trying to pigeon hole my politics when we probably agree on a lot and could be working in a more constructive discourse.



There's comperting defintions - none of which support your version. Wtf is it with lib-dems on here thinking that they're anarchists? That's three now isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Defend this sytenms against the fascists! Defend Oxford, defend the queen, defend partliament, defend democracy, defend capitalism!



If it's all the same with you, I'd rather not.

Especially not Oxford.


----------



## cesare (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> There's comperting defintions - none of which support your version. Wtf is it with lib-dems on here thinking that they're anarchists? That's three now isn't it?




There's Shevek, can't think of the other one. Odd though innit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> If it's all the same with you, I'd rather not.
> 
> Especially not Oxford.


you have a degree from cantab?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

cesare said:


> There's Shevek, can't think of the other one. Odd though innit.



perverse


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I dont think there is a need to be abusive, if you disagree thats fine but there is litte need to be hurtful particulay when im interesting in hearing your views.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

i'll give it a go, but i can't promise you'll be pleased with the results. as anyone who knows me will tell you, i am very offensive and foul-mouthed and have been for many years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I say paradoxicaly because it also creates the conditions in which facisin can emerge...


The establishment doesn't create those condition, capitalism (the same force that creates "establishments" of the type you're talking about) does.


> ...which is why we must seek to reform it whilst also on occasions working with it.


Mmmm, because reformism has a proven track record of success, doesn't it?


> Remember it was the industrial might of our establishment that defeated nazisism a threat to its own vested interests.


No, it was the deployment of a massive military project overwhelmingly peopled by the working class that defeated Nazism, "the establishment" merely provided the (very expensive and therefore very profitable) tools.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

cesare said:


> There's Shevek, can't think of the other one. Odd though innit.



Im not a lib dem though already said that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> you have a degree from cantab?



Most certainly not!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most certainly not!!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Yes I take your point about working classes actually fighting the war but surley because the establishment decided it was in thier own vested interest to send people to thier deaths


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

connect... the... dots...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Are you so intent on marginalising yourself that you are willing to offend all Liberal Democrats ? Come on these are all people some of which may have some good ideas about fighting facisism.



They have *ideas*. Whether those ideas are "good" or not depends on your perspective. I don't personally see how rearranging the current political furniture equates to a "good idea".


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The point is we cant be dogmatic in fighting facisism we need a new approach and we should not exclude people who might be of use. Im advocating unitity thats all



There is no unity.  How can there be unity with people who want to maintain the status quo?  A status quo which gives rise to the conditions in which fascism grows?  How can there be unity with people who want to divide society even further based on property ownership?

You're being very naive mate.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> people who had parents and (other) family killed in the holocaust do not necessarily have top politics, or politics capable of doing more than sounding off against the bnp. their membership of the establishment gives them a rather vested interest in the status quo ante, and i for one have little interest working with people who simply want their interests shored up and have no concern for the creation of a better world.


Me too but some members of the establishment are fooled and think that capitalism makes peoples lives better and so do care about making a better world


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> If you say so, its a semantic point unless there is an official definition of anarchism which would seem paradoxical to me. I feel like you are trying to pigeon hole my politics when we probably agree on a lot and could be working in a more constructive discourse.



You believe in capitalist free markets.  That is not an anarchist position.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Me too but some members of the establishment are fooled and think that capitalism makes peoples lives better and so do care about making a better world



fooled by who? 

Have you considered the possibility that what a better world looks like depends almost entirely on your own perspective?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> An anarcho-liberal who thinks there is a need for grass roots democratic organisations to oppose state and corporate monopolies. Hence why Im an active trade unionist as I think free markets are a good thing so long as they are actively  partially opposed to mitigate against thier worse aspects in a balanced conflict of interest. This thread is getting a bit moon focused



Its not surprising that your political views are odd. That's the finest mass of contradictions I've seen in a single post since the days of max_freakout.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The point is we cant be dogmatic in fighting facisism we need a new approach and we should not exclude people who might be of use. Im advocating unitity thats all


Nobody has said that dogmatism is required, but there's a point to be made that the *methods* with which you challenge fascists and fascism need to be relevant to those who are most likely to be affected by fascism, and *not* predicated on supporting the political _status quo_ and upholding our pseudo-democratic form of government (which is what has always happened if people listen to arguments put forth by our political establishment).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes I take your point about working classes actually fighting the war but surley because the establishment decided it was in thier own vested interest to send people to thier deaths



and...?

C'mon, think about it.

No?

I'll lay it out for you.

You're talking about working with the kind of people who'd do that sort of thing, you're talking about aiding an entity that'd think nothing of buying entirely into a politics that might see masses of us dead.
Me, I'd rather not give my cooperation to people who'll use any power we cede to them for their own immediate ends.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

The system plays those who are implicit in it. It forces people to look after thier own vested interests or be shafted. All respect to those who resist it but most dont. Im not going to exclude these people from political dialogue on principle sorry


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

What?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The system plays those who are implicit in it. It forces people to look after thier own vested interests or be shafted. All respect to those who resist it but most dont. Im not going to exclude these people from political dialogue on principle sorry


once more, this time in english.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You believe in capitalist free markets.  That is not an anarchist position.


Have you not read Murray Routhbard? There are anarcho-capitalist schools of thought its open for debate not a closed book.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Murray Rothbard! Brilliant! The veneer starts to er...crumble?

It is a closed book and shit one too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Have you not read Murray Routhbard? There are anarcho-capitalist schools of thought its open for debate not a closed book.


good god man you're all over the bloody shop - have you no self-respect?


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2009)

Moon23, I think you should maybe read a bit less theory and try talking to people a bit more. 

Everyone else on this thread -- you have a lot more stamina/patience than I do...


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue said:


> Moon23, I think you should maybe read a bit less theory and try talking to people a bit more.
> 
> Everyone else on this thread -- you have a lot more stamina/patience than I do...


Actualy you a probably right Sue! Sorry if im trying peoples patience but I fail to see how removing property or money will make thinks fairer. Inequality exists in societies with monetary systems and those without them.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

why dont people send me some book suggestions via a private msg and at the same time ill take Sues advice to speak more and read less Lol


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue said:


> Moon23, I think you should maybe read a bit less theory and try talking to people a bit more.



Or listening...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

let's just take this simple step by simple step in the hope that moon23 can keep up. 

there is no point in allying with establishment figures for the sake of 'unity' in anti-fascism (or anything else for that matter) while these establishment types have a vested interest in the status quo.

have you got that, moon23?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Have you not read Murray Routhbard? There are anarcho-capitalist schools of thought its open for debate not a closed book.



Murray Rothbard is not an anarchist.  Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.  How can a system based on one class exploiting another be anarchist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Murray Rothbard is not an anarchist.  Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.  How can a system based on one class exploiting another be anarchist?


oi oi  let's take this one stage at a time in the (probably vain) hope that in the end moon23 will gain enlightenment


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> oi oi  let's take this one stage at a time in the (probably vain) hope that in the end moon23 will gain enlightenment



Thanks for working with me! Yes listening is important as my wife always says to me


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

i bet the people who usually work with you have chaises longue on which you lie while they do their analysis.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Murray Rothbard is not an anarchist.  Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.  How can a system based on one class exploiting another be anarchist?


Its possible to have non exploitative models for social businesses is it not like restricting companies so they are not for profit workers co-op existing in a restricted but largely free market that uses a money system and allows for ownership of property


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

No it's not.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> i bet the people who usually work with you have chaises longue on which you lie while they do their analysis.



No considering all the acid and Dmt in seasonaly sane


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> No considering all the acid and Dmt in seasonaly sane


seasonably sane? not from where i'm sat.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not.


Can I ask why or will you kill me?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

Because, for starters, wage labour is exploitation itself, there is no such thing as non-exploitative wage labour today.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> seasonably sane? not from where i'm sat.


 Its the wrong season.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Its the wrong season.


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2009)

Moon 23, this isn't meant to sound mean but how old are you? It's just I get the impression you've read a lot of stuff but maybe haven't much experience of work etc?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Because, for starters, wage labour is exploitation itself, there is no such thing as non-exploitative wage labour today.



Thats a tautology wage labour is exploitative for a reason not just because it is. i always thought it was because of the creation of surplus value, rather than the exchanging of a monetary symbol per re. If the surplus wealth is re-distributed whats the problem?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The system plays those who are implicit in it.


I suspect you actually mean "complicit". 


> It forces people to look after thier own vested interests or be shafted.


No, it doesn't.
It may *influence* people to take a self-centred attitude, but it doesn't "force" them. 


> All respect to those who resist it but most dont. Im not going to exclude these people from political dialogue on principle sorry


Then don't be surprised when you get shat on, because you'll have asked for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue said:


> Moon 23, this isn't meant to sound mean but how old are you? It's just I get the impression you've read a lot of stuff but maybe haven't much experience of work etc?


or - for that matter - of any sort of discrimination in what you read.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thats a tautology wage labour is exploitative for a reason not just because it is. i always thought it was because of the creation of surplus value, rather than the exchanging of a monetary symbol per re. If the surplus wealth is re-distributed whats the problem?



That's neither here nor there. You said that it was possible for it not to be exploitative, not something about distributing the results of that exploitation. Anyway, not that interested in this line. Sorry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Have you not read Murray Routhbard? There are anarcho-capitalist schools of thought its open for debate not a closed book.



Except insofar as "anarcho-capitalism" is a self-contradictory concept, and merely a name thought up by extreme libertarians to give their ideology a more appealing name.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue said:


> Moon 23, this isn't meant to sound mean but how old are you? It's just I get the impression you've read a lot of stuff but maybe haven't much experience of work etc?



I have 10 years of work experience including once when Matalan forced me to stay behind the tills in an empty shop whilst management watched the big solar eclipse we had a few years ago - Grr...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> good god man you're all over the bloody shop - have you no self-respect?



Probably not, but then again neither did Murray Rothbard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I have 10 years of work experience including once when Matalan forced me to stay behind the tills in an empty shop whilst management watched the big solar eclipse we had a few years ago - Grr...


do you mean the big solar eclipse of august 1999?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Its possible to have non exploitative models for social businesses is it not like restricting companies so they are not for profit workers co-op existing in a restricted but largely free market that uses a money system and allows for ownership of property



A "largely free market" is not, by definition, a "free market". It's a managed market.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> That's neither here nor there. You said that it was possible for it not to be exploitative, not something about distributing the results of that exploitation. Anyway, not that interested in this line. Sorry.



Its not that exploitative if strong unions and laws ensure that surplus value is given back to the workers. Compared say to a collectivist or unrestricted capitalist system where exploitation can be widespread


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

If it's given back it's not surplus value -the alienation of that  value is _sort of the deal_. And again, you said it could be non-exploitative, and i'm still not really interested in this argument.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> A "largely free market" is not, by definition, a "free market". It's a managed market.


Yes thats what I was trying to propose a free market that is actively opposed by unions in order that a balance is struck, the contradiction is essential to this arrangement you see to avoid either forces of the free market or unionised workforce gaining a position of hegemony.  Essentialy it allows for innovation and economic freedom withing the needs and wishes of the communtity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Its not *that* exploitative if strong unions and laws ensure that surplus value is given back to the workers.


So, even by your own measure, it's still "exploitative".
By the way, workers only ever have a fraction of the surplus value of the fruits of their labours returned to them, hence wage labour being inherently and unarguably exploitative.


> Compared say to a collectivist or unrestricted capitalist system where exploitation can be widespread


So, yet again what you're saying that you're to preserve the political _status quo_ for no better reason than convenience, and the fact that the only alternatives you personally can conceive are at the extremes of the topic.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> do you mean the big solar eclipse of august 1999?



Yes thats the one. It did not help improve my attitude towards un opposed capitalism now of course I would have just walked out


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes thats what I was trying to propose a free market that is actively opposed by unions in order that a balance is struck...


A balance being struck, an accommodation being reached between the parties, means that your "free market" isn't free, but rather managed, whether through agreement or conflict.  


> ...the contradiction is essential to this arrangement you see to avoid either forces of the free market or unionised workforce gaining a position of hegemony...


Except that a state of dynamic equilibrium between the two poles is impossible to attain except insofar as it can be (simplistically) modelled mathematically.


> Essentialy it allows for innovation and economic freedom withing the needs and wishes of the communtity.


Except that it would rely, as does any form of market capitalism, on persuading the community what their "needs and wishes" might be.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Violentpanda I do not think we are anywhere near this balance i speak of so the status quo needs to change a lot.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Its possible to have non exploitative models for social businesses is it not like restricting companies so they are not for profit workers co-op existing in a restricted but largely free market that uses a money system and allows for ownership of property



No.  Private property is inherently exploitative.  Private property means wage labour.  If some people have no choice but to work for a wage for others, how is that not exploitative?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thats a tautology wage labour is exploitative for a reason not just because it is. i always thought it was because of the creation of surplus value, rather than the exchanging of a monetary symbol per re. If the surplus wealth is re-distributed whats the problem?



If some people own private property (i.e. land, resources, means of production) and others don't, then the people who don't are forced to work for the people that do, on their terms.  In a nutshell.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Its not that exploitative if strong unions and laws ensure that surplus value is given back to the workers. Compared say to a collectivist or unrestricted capitalist system where exploitation can be widespread



Add Capital by Marx to that list of books I sent you!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda All markets are balanced by conflict as are all human relationships. Human conflict would exist without the market. This system attempt to balance interests where possible and yes it would be according to the views of the community so grass roots participation is key.


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2009)

Moon23, surprised to see you worked for 10 years. 

I find it difficult to understand half of what you're saying as you're using 23 political theory words where one normal word would do. 

I always think if people come out with jargon and can't explain what they mean in everyday language, then they don't really know what they're talking about. (And are going to find it difficult to talk to people who haven't read all the books -- that is, most people -- but have a good grasp of the practicalities.)


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue have you read the Class Bead game by Hesse? It covers that problem as one of its themes. You do not think that about science surely? All subjects have thier lexicon and a complex issue is not easy to simplify


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta a strong union can control the labour limiting the extent to which an owner can use the means of production to exploit labour. Laws governing the formation of companies can restrict the ability to gain so much capital so can laws about passing on wealth down generations.  Such a balance of conflict of interest would not be easy to resolve


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Such tension is still dynamic so mitigates against the problems of stagnation and black market crime that emerge in planned economies


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Sue have you read the Class Bead game by Hesse? It covers that problem as one of its themes. You do not think that about science surely? All subjects have thier lexicon and a complex issue is not easy to simplify



Moon23, if this thread has come to any kind of conclusion, it's that if you want to stop people voting BNP, you need to look at why they're voting BNP. 

Why use a 'lexicon' that is not understood by the vast majority of people (myself included) and then claim it's complex and that it's their fault they don't understand you?

Issues like housing and jobs and antisocial behaviour and whatever else are everyday things that people talk about all the time in everyday language. People are not stupid and treating them like they are is, shall we say, counterproductive.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue unlike TV i dont normally dumb down my language as I think doing so would be a bit patronising. it also takes more skill to communicate complex ideas in simple terms  i feel we are drawing to a close now and thats an important point to muse on.


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm not talking about dumbing down.

Anyway, yes, hopefully you've found the thread interesting/useful.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

no your talking about effective communication. Thanks it has been interesting and the book suggestions from Blagsta are useful. A few rude comments thrown my way but in thicked skinned enough to take that. I wont be going away but will try to keep other threads a bit more on topic thx


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Blagsta a strong union can control the labour limiting the extent to which an owner can use the means of production to exploit labour. Laws governing the formation of companies can restrict the ability to gain so much capital so can laws about passing on wealth down generations.  Such a balance of conflict of interest would not be easy to resolve



You're ignoring the basic point.  Some people being forced to work for others is inherently exploitative.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Such tension is still dynamic so mitigates against the problems of stagnation and black market crime that emerge in planned economies



Whose proposing a planned economy?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

That's what the book say the opposition to a free market is


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're ignoring the basic point.  Some people being forced to work for others is inherently exploitative.


people have been banging their heads against the brick wall that is moon23 for hours now: without success.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> people have been banging their heads against the brick wall that is moon23 for hours now: without success.



I have faith in him.  Just needs a little "re-education"   Hey, it worked on me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)




----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Whose proposing a planned economy?



North Korea


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> North Korea



not proposing, operating.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> North Korea



A masterful non sequitur!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> North Korea



Which, i think, shows up the false oppostion (@paul calf) that you've set yourself. NK is a regime of a special type, it's nothing to do with some general opposition model to real capitalism.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I have faith in him.  Just needs a little "re-education"   Hey, it worked on me.



Thanks maybe one day moon will find a board that tolerates him! Im aware at how capital exploits people though


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thanks maybe one day moon will find a board that tolerates him! Im aware at how capital exploits people though


i don't think you are, your posts certainly don't show any great comprehension.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thanks maybe one day moon will find a board that tolerates him! Im aware at how capital exploits people though



If you're aware, why are you arguing in favour of it while calling yourself an anarchist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> If you're aware, why are you arguing in favour of it while calling yourself an anarchist?


false consciousness?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Thanks maybe one day moon will find a board that tolerates him! Im aware at how capital exploits people though



I think you've been having people replying with a smile on their face and that - people wanting to point out where you're going massively wrong..but...


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Which, i think, shows up the false oppostion (@paul calf) that you've set yourself. NK is a regime of a special type, it's nothing to do with some general opposition model to real capitalism.



Blast you have ruined my straw man you fiend  night night!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

im trying to argue against myself in part and also im never 100% of these things.  Question everything has been my motto for today. By in large I agree with your critiques and im not so massivly behind everything although they have all bed doubts not been simply trolling, but whats the alternative...  Where are we the radical alternative at and how do we get were we want to be or even agree where we want to be?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> i don't think you are, your posts certainly don't show any great comprehension.



As far as I can tell you exceed in being rude at least that is something


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2009)

moon23]As far as I can tell you exceed in being rude at least that is something[/quote]ffs :mad:  you only know that because i fucking told you that above: [QUOTE=Pickman'sModel said:


> i'll give it a go, but i can't promise you'll be pleased with the results. as anyone who knows me will tell you, i am very offensive and foul-mouthed and have been for many years.


you've not really learnt anything from this thread have you?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I think you've been having people replying with a smile on their face and that - people wanting to point out where you're going massively wrong..but...


 good i like the anarcho-moron line btw


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> im trying to argue against myself in part and also im never 100% of these things.  Question everything has been my motto for today. By in large I agree with your critiques and im not so massivly behind everything although they have all bed doubts not been simply trolling, but whats the alternative...  Where are we the radical alternative at and how do we get were we want to be or even agree where we want to be?



You actually do sound just like Shevek 

Are you Shevek?  *shines torch in moon's eyes*


----------



## partyzan (Jun 16, 2009)

...what have you all been up to since i've been away???


----------



## partyzan (Jun 16, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> i don't think you are, your posts certainly don't show any great comprehension.



Yeah i agree, but more importantly they do show that she/he has integrity, and appears to to be trying to break down the barriers of political sectarianism....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Yeah i agree, but more importantly they do show that he gives a s*** and isn't some some sectarian fuckwit!


you mean he's moon23 nice-but-dim? lots of people took the time to explain the error of his ways only to be met with incomprehension - he may give a shit, but his solution's no solution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2009)

partyzan said:


> Yeah i agree, but more importantly they do show that she/he has integrity, and appears to to be trying to break down the barriers of political sectarianism....


you're taking the pith with your edit.


----------



## partyzan (Jun 16, 2009)

Sue said:


> Moon23, if this thread has come to any kind of conclusion, it's that if you want to stop people voting BNP, you need to look at why they're voting BNP.
> 
> Why use a 'lexicon' that is not understood by the vast majority of people (myself included) and then claim it's complex and that it's their fault they don't understand you?
> 
> Issues like housing and jobs and antisocial behaviour and whatever else are everyday things that people talk about all the time in everyday language. People are not stupid and treating them like they are is, shall we say, counterproductive.



I liked this, but can you honestly say that you've never called someone, or failing that thought of them, as being as being stupid because they were less enlightened than you?

So most of here can probably say, at the very least, that we're not racists....so therefore are we then not saying that we are more enlightened and educated than racists, no matter how 'soft' their racism might be?


----------



## partyzan (Jun 16, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> you're taking the pith with your edit.



..i was trying to be polite!


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Pickman'sModel said:


> you mean he's moon23 nice-but-dim? lots of people took the time to explain the error of his ways only to be met with incomprehension - he may give a shit, but his solution's no solution.



Whats your solution? i was exploring the possibility of a strong unionised workforce opposing the worse effects of capitalism.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

partyzan said:


> I liked this, but can you honestly say that you've never called someone, or failing that thought of them, as being as being stupid because they were less enlightened than you?
> 
> So most of here can probably say, at the very least, that we're not racists....so therefore are we then not saying that we are more enlightened and educated than racists, no matter how 'soft' their racism might be?



It's an interesting point. I have often thought this about the theory of false counciousness that it relies on one person saying they are more enlightened then those who are fooled.

Hans Mangus Enzensberger who wrote the consciousness industry talks a lot about the idea of capitalism and culture manufacturing false counciousness. Essentialy is it possibly to say capitalism fools people to the extent where they are willing to be exploited. The attitude to some people to work might suggest this? 

Is there something wrong about saying that racism is an objective (deontological moral wrong) Personaly i'm not so sure there is. 

How though are we able to communicate this to people without being elitist and smug in our englithened state? That's how BNP portray as a smug elite, with their anti-interlectualism.

One other point about moral certianty is that some of the worse acts are committed by people in the name of morality, and enforcing it. Although I don't like post-modernism (bascially the idea that there are no moral phenoma only the moral interpretation of phenomma- Nietzche), does it as a  liberal model stop the risk of people imposing their false morality on the rest of us?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Violentpanda I do not think we are anywhere near this balance i speak of so the status quo needs to change a lot.



To repeat myself, the balance you speak of is *impossible*. Such a balance presupposes the ability of the markets and the forces that you wish to see/believe can regulate it "light-handedly" to sustain a dynamic equilibrium (i.e. shifting in immediate reaction to new inputs from any party) between the forces.
Such a system can only ever be partial, and can only ever be *reactive*, so while it sounds great on a web page or in a text book, it can't and won't function "in the wild".
Changing the _status quo_ won't make such a balance more or less attainable, changing the _status quo_ merely shifts the direction in which it easiest to direct events.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> ViolentPanda All markets are balanced by conflict as are all human relationships.


They're not balanced by it, they're shifted into more acceptable (at least for one of the parties) compromises at most. Balance in *any* social relationship is only possible in stasis, and social relationships are *fluid*.


> Human conflict would exist without the market. This system attempt to balance interests where possible and yes it would be according to the views of the community so grass roots participation is key.


Any such system would find it impossible to balance interests in a way that didn't favour one "side" over another, and grass roots participation wouldn't change that. What you propose is managerialism writ large, top-down control with the sop to those being "managed" of "grass roots participation" that would be reactive so therefore only capable of closing the stable door after the market horse has bolted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're ignoring the basic point.  Some people being forced to work for others is inherently exploitative.



*Whoever* the "other" is and whether they have legislative sanction or not. Economic compulsion is still compulsion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I have faith in him.  Just needs a little "re-education"   Hey, it worked on me.



"So you've been to school for a year or two, and you know you've seen it all..."


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Yes I can see the problem of trying to achieve balance when capital was constantly seeking to maximise its exploitation. What would be the best alternative?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Yes I can see the problem of trying to achieve balance when capital was constantly seeking to maximise its exploitation. What would be the best alternative?



Social ownership and management of production?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Thats very elopuently put violetpanda i like the notion of reforming the status quo just changing the speed at which different sides could react. What would the most effective underlying dynamic be?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Social ownership and management of production?



I like his as an idea but wonder how it would work in practice could you imagine agreeing a constituion? just look at the sectarianism infighting that occurs when opposing the facisists.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

I was looking at the Indymedia report on the leeds protest and its terrible. Bashing SWP and UAF for not taking on an Orange march etc you would think people would pull together. How could we possibly manage the means of production as a social grouping when we barley manage to march together against facists? Sorry to be pessimistic


----------



## Sue (Jun 16, 2009)

I have lost the will to live.


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Sue said:


> I have lost the will to live.



Cheer up Sue, you seem to have lots of common sense! Your post about plain english was very good. perhaps we are just over analysing our differences eh and we should all have more confidence in each other


----------



## Sue (Jun 16, 2009)

After 260 posts on this thread and over a hundred on the other one, it feels as though we're right back where we started.  Do you feel you've got anything from this thread as I'm not really sure that things have moved on any...


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Personaly its been very helpful/usefull.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> I like his as an idea but wonder how it would work in practice could you imagine agreeing a constituion? just look at the sectarianism infighting that occurs when opposing the facisists.



Do you "infight" with your work colleagues?  Or do you just get on with it?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Do you "infight" with your work colleagues?  Or do you just get on with it?



Well I have people in positions of authority over me so I have to ‘just get on with it’ or I would face recriminations. These are terms and conditions under which my Labor is exploited.

When working outside of work on voluntary projects with like minded people the relationships are generally more harmonious. The worse groups I have worked within are those that got obsessed with trying to legislate all the relationships under the name of making things more equitable, and the best are the anarchic ones where things get done by those who want to do them and these people naturally fall into leadership roles.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 16, 2009)

So you _can_ get on with stuff without the threat of recriminations from someone in authority?


----------



## moon23 (Jun 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> So you _can_ get on with stuff without the threat of recriminations from someone in authority?



Of course yes, id like to think in time when tensions arising from capitalist exploitation are reduced harmonious  relations would be more likely. Although I have not experienced a very communal form of living I suspect it would still be prone to some abuses of material and cultural power.


----------

