Militant Anti Fascism: Physically preventing fascists from organizing, and ideologically challenging them on the grounds of class unity and in the white working class communities they organize in. "If you can't convince a fascist aquaint his head with the pavement."
Liberal Anti Fascism: Writing papers attacking fascists and debate them when you meet them. "If we just talk to violent people with no hope, we can change them, and butterflies and rainbows."
It should be clear which side I'm on
So you cosider yourself a militant? Have you ever acted in violence against someone you deemed fascist?
I'm not sure there is such a thing as militant anti-fascism... In practice, fascism kind of involves militant civilians and/or vigalante justice. You're decrying their ideology while employing their tactics- and let's face it, while their ideology is repulsive, their tactics are even more so.
When fascists march without opposition in England hate crimes jump 300%. Also when fascists feel powerful they organized "anti mugging patrols" (beat up any nonwhites you see). Or they win seats and enact laws, where as the violence we use against them makes them scared. Militant Anti Fascism stopped England from going fascist in the 80s.
Butterflies and rainbows work sometimes, ya know -.-
Out of curiousity, human, what race are you? (Don't answer if you don't want to, I just wondered.)
The "best" way for things to happen is for violence to be unneccessary and everything is butterflies and rainbows, but because the Statists won't leave non-aggressive people minding their own business alone, eventually it's time to say, "Enough. This can't continue," and use whatever means neccessary to persuade the Statists to leave well enough alone.
the NAP is a horrible idea. No economic system is voluntary. If I violate property "rights" I get shot. However if you try to make property in communism you get shot. Also waged labor is slavery, work or starve to death.
Sooo... I don't understand where this goes. You don't like the NAP. So you're going to try to force me into your society? And if I refuse I'm shot? Nice.
(Care to elaborate on why you don't like the NAP?)
You say waged labor is slavery. Isn't any labor slavery? Food doesn't just grow. For example, out in my garden is a bed of carrots. I cultivated and fertilized the ground, planted, watered, and weeded the seeds, and at the moment they're about ready to harvest.
You're telling me there's a way to grow carrots without doing that work? I'm a little skeptical.
(Or are you talking about a lifestyle based on the Evasion zine? If so you might have a point. I doubt an entire populace could survive on lefthanding though.)
You would to because violence is justified in defending property. And if I don't believe in property you'll shoot me.
no because workers have been deprived of the ability to work without selling the labor of others.
Spelling there labor on the market
human said: "If I don't believe in property you'll shoot me."
What does it mean to "not believe in property?" What is property?
Let me say that if you come in my yard I won't shoot you. If you ask me for carrots, I'll give some to you, but I have no obligation to do so. I might ask that you help me with something, in exchange for the carrots. If you go out in the garden and take the carrots, I might get irritated, because you have no claim (no investment of labor) in those carrots.
Let me say it like this: The product of my labor is mine to dispose of. I can keep it, trade it, or give it away. If you have not invested your labor, you have no claim on the product of my labor.
You also said workers have been deprived of the ability to work without selling the labor of others. I don't understand this, can't you just sell your own labor? How is that different from selling the product of your labor?
No, but if a homeless person tries to squat a rich guys summer home, under your philosophy the person is justified in shooting him. Or if a guy is buying food to drive up the price (speculation) its ok, but its not ok for the people he's made hungry to take back there food.
What I mean is that because one group of people (capitalists) own the means of production (things that produce goods). These people use there ownership of the MOP to force the working class (who don't own the MOP) to pay them a portion of the goods they produce. If the workers don't sell there labor they starve.
This got buried, I'll answer tomorrow.
bump bump bump
I know, I know. I'm terrible. I'm busy, and when TI decides to eat your entire reply the one time you forgot to save it............ ARRRRGH!
Anyway, there's this thing called minimum force, so I'd say he wouldn't exactly be justified in shooting the homeless guy, but picking him up and putting him out in the street yes.
Now I know that sounds cruel and callous, but it comes back to who "owns" the resources. You say the people should own the resources, but how can "the people" own the resources? What if some people don't want to be involved?
I don't know if you've ever read FanShen; it's a book about the early stages of the communist revolution in rural China. If you haven't read it I suggest you do. It was written by a sympathetic American communist, so it's pretty laudatory of what happened. Basic summary from what I remember:
In the village, there were Landlords (15% pop.) with the vast majority of the land, maybe 80%. Then there were the peasants, who had some land of their own or worked for the landlords.
The landlords cooperated with the Japanese and Guomindang, the communists began an underground movement and awakened the people. After liberation, the land was more or less evenly distributed and people worked together. What happened?
It should have been idyllic. Equality and prosperity at last. But it was noticed that some people were more diligent than others and produced more. The question was then raised: Should they have less of the MOP with which to work so that their output will be equal to the others,' should they have the same amount, or should they have more so they can increase the total production of the community?
At the time of writing this issue was unresolved. Part of human nature, however, is self-interest. That's why babies scream until they get fed, why toddlers bicker over toys, why teenagers are into the latest hair style, why adults have status symbols of cars and jobs and boats and pools and ..... you get the point. It's basic human nature to want the best for yourself. For your property. To own it.
Marxism (as I understand it -- correct me if I'm wrong) seeks to change this fundamental quality of human nature so that we all become perfect, charitable, altruistic, loving human beings. Well... I'll believe it when I see it.
An individual or group of individuals can own something. A collective cannot, because there is no such thing as a collective. It's a myth, because every "collective" is made up of living, breathing, individuals, perhaps sharing a common dream or interest and combining their physical and mental resources for the fulfillment of some goal. But the "collective" cannot make decisions. Only individuals can do that.
Take majority democracy for an example. :p
Or take the Zapatistas. The council will discuss whatever issue comes up until consensus of some sort is reached. But it is each individual who puts forward or retracts his opinion, and there is no collective entity that makes a decision for anyone and everyone.
What does this come back to? The means of production is owned by the workers. The workers are the means of production. If they own themselves, they determine right and wrong for each situation. It's rather pompous of us to think we know what should be done.
In regards to your examples, 1) If the rich guy is "nice" he should let the homeless guy stay, but because he worked for what he has, he has no obligation to him. Let me ask, under a utopian Marxist society, would everyone be obligated to open their home to anyone who asked?
2) How did the people allow their food resources to be taken from them? Did they voluntarily give them to an illegitimate authority as taxes/theft? Or were they exchanged for other needed commodities? Clothes, housing, etc.?
I would say yes it is wrong to exploit like that, but the the people must decide for themselves what to do in such a situation.
(((Sorry if that is incoherent, rambling, and filled with typos. I'm not proofreading, I'm going to bed. lol)))
I'll make a longer reply later:
I'm not a Marxist, I do take elements of Marxist economics. However I am a libertarian communist or socialist. Marxists don't believe in human nature, but that human behavior is shaped by material condition. It advocates changing coniditions to make different behavior result.
on collectives and individuals: However without collectives individuals wouldn't exist. without your parents you wouldn't exist. Also no one produces anything on there own. Without society to teach you english, typing, and philosophy you couldn't have written that. Without the work of chinese workers you wouldn't have had a computer to post it on.
Sorry, I thought I remembered a post where you said you were a Marxist... my bad.
Do you put a difference between "society" and "collective?"
"Society" didn't teach me english or how to type or philosophy. My parents taught me the first two, and the second one is a combination of my parents and reading books (written by individuals) and watching lectures (given by individuals) and discussing different topics (with individuals).
Are you a collective?
My laptop, yes, it's made by Chinese workers and is part of the technology destroying the earth. I wouldn't have a laptop if I didn't need it for my job. I'd love to not need electricity and tech and just live off grid like Ted Kaczynski (not bombing people of course), but yes, right now in society I do have/need this stuff.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your longer reply.
BTW would f2f communication be easier for you?
Your ability to exist is a result of inumerable people. Those who grew your food. Those who made the roads to bring it to you. Those who taught those people to do that. If you had been dropped on a planet with all the food you needed to survive as a baby, but no people you wouldn't have any personality.