/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

>>7683
Did I stutter motherfucker?

Ive been here since the board began and i can tell you for a fact that no, anfems are not worse than or equal to ayncraps.

Anfems are essentially non-existent, and when they do pop up its not for very long.
ayncraps however, they're like the fucking plague. They seem/seemed to be everywhere, saying the same non-sense over and over and over and over and over until the whole board became a cancerous shit hole where the only conversation was ayncraps vs Everyone else.

Anfems, they've done essentially fuck all, here and the real world. I don't mind them, they are a minority of a minority of a minority.

>>7685
They're the same as in they're not anarchists

>muh tribal matriarchy

>>7689
>anfem
>matriarchy
I'm tipping my capital in your direction, m'comrade.

They're not like capitalists.
However, they are like women, they want more attention so they add feminism. You dont see me calling myself anarcho-statelessist. Feminism is the emancipation of women to form a egalitarian society and is part of just "anarchism". So it's not really all that bad.

I think you are confusing feminism for feminazism, which is entirely different.

>>7691
If that's not what they want, then what is?

>SMASH THE STATE BECAUSE THE STATE=PATRIARCHY
Okay state is smashed now what
>lol i dunno let the syndicalists/communists/mutualists figure it out

anarcho-[anything-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-economics] is fucking stupid

>>7695
>Anti-fascists seem to compromise free speech

How so?

>>7697
You are right. In anarchism we would still have boards like /pol/ to shitpost on. There's nothing wrong with it, until someone acts it out.

Though, remember, there must be a "clear" distinction between "threat" and "free speech". Though I still don't believe pre-emptive action is required, just preparation for defense.

>>7698
>Though I still don't believe pre-emptive action is required, just preparation for defense.

I never understood the "Only in self defense" argument. Fascist's and Neo-Nazis already kill people, are we just supposed to sit on our asses and wait until they decide to do it again?

Another thing, why is it Anti-Free speech to have a rally against fascists? Ive seen this argument before and i don't understand the logic behind it. So its OK for Nazi and fascist groups to organize and spread their indoctrination to those who are easily moved to there side, but if an anti-fascist group comes to say "We don't want your bullshit here" and physically fight them (It wont always get violent, but they tend to be) to get out ts anti-freedom of speech? Are anti-fascists not allowed to not counter political menages by expression their own freedom of speech telling fascists to fuck off?

Do people always conveniently forget that the fascists don't just have a political agenda, they have a physical one as well, one that must also be combated physically? Its not as if you see fascists groups handing out shit to the homeless, their solution is to just kill them. And its not as if all fascists are all peaceful fun loving cat lovers or some shit, they kill people, its not a lie, its not a piece of misinformation, they kill people everyday. They are violent organizations that unfortunately must be combated by violence.

Is that to say that we should go out to any-wannabe fascist and blow there brains out? Absolutely not! There needs to be an open dialogue between potential fascists/semi indoctrinated fascists and anti-fascists or just anarchists. If people heads arnt already filled to the brim will fascist lies and misinformation, then theirs no need to hurt anyone, just taking would usual be enough to poke enough holes into the bullshit that they don't want to be fascists anymore. But then their are the people willing to kill for their cause, and as far as im concerned its open season on them. They made their choice, and their choice ends with them killing or dying.

Even you /anarcho/, has fallen to the bullshit fox news-tier shit about feminists being some kind of supremacist organization? Seriously?

>>7705
>You are acting like anarchists haven't killed people either.

No, we have. Anarchists as a group have killed loads of people. The difference is that we tend not to do it because we want to, its usually for self preservation, propaganda or a class issue.

> Violence will be met with violence, but say someone is persuaded in fascism, because nobody is perfect and we are all ignorant animals who can be easily brainwashed, should we curb stomp their teeth out before they've even had a chance to reflect on why they think what they think?

Read >>7700

>Is that to say that we should go out to any-wannabe fascist and blow there brains out? Absolutely not! There needs to be an open dialogue between potential fascists/semi indoctrinated fascists and anti-fascists or just anarchists. If people heads arnt already filled to the brim will fascist lies and misinformation, then theirs no need to hurt anyone, just taking would usual be enough to poke enough holes into the bullshit that they don't want to be fascists anymore.

>Remember that fascists are socialists who reject capitalism

Your point being what? Stalinist reject capitalism, and they've killed millions of people. Thats even if fascists are really socialists, which almost all of them are not. Just because Nazis were "National Socialist" mean they were socialist at all, they were fascists.

>stumble over race and nationalism.

Pretty big fucking stumble. Its actually a big enough stumble to put them all the way at the other end of the political spectrum.

>If they are merely parading around like jackasses peacefully then they have every right to do so, and the second you argue that you are what you hate

Im not saying that they cant go out and spout there bullshit (Which isn't the only tying they do, you get people like that in a large angry group things tend to be violent), im saying they can do it but they will be fought every step of the way. I have as much as a right as they do to tell them to fuck off as they have a right to spew hate and misinformation.

>So separate the real threat from the one conjured up by feverish dreams of purity.

The fuck are you talking about?

>>7709
>If this is what fascists do, what makes you different from them by telling me that you can forcibly make them 'fuck off,' because they spew misinformation and hatred?

Whats makes me different is im not a fucking fascist. I don't want to to create a totalitarian state that would enslave the population and kill untold amounts of people in the process, i actively aim to prevent that, that's why i oppose them in the first place.

>Fascists have a right to assemble or you have forgotten about the freedoms you are supposed to represent.

I don't give two fucks about their right to assemble, i have the right to assemble right fucking back at them. Rights to assemble are rights the fundamentally come from a government, because they are allowing you to do it. Giving the rights to assemble inherently means that if they can give you that right they can also take it away. Respecting ones rights has nothing to do with being an anarchist, because respecting ones rights would be on par with respecting the system as a whole. Should i also respect peoples property rights? Or how about the rights for landlords to evict their tenants by force even if it means that the occupants would die of exposure?

Im an Anarchist, i do not respect some false conception of right, rights that are given to you by the state the have no meaning to me. Does that mean fascist can assemble? No, they can and they will, regardless of what anti-fascist want and what states want. But where they are, we will be too. Whats the problem with that?

>Don't forget that the people who commit some of the most atrocious acts in history are people themselves, corrupted by a cold logic of might makes right.

If you mean that only those with the ability to defend themselves survive, then yes, that's right. You wanna know who the first people to die in armed conflicts are? Pacifists. Wanna know why? They wont fight back.

Violence, ultimately, is the only things that decides power. This is not a hard concept to grasp, most anarchists would tell you that the state is really the people who have a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce their rules. Not that this has much to do with anti-Fascism. As im sure you know, anti-fascists aren't part of the government (IE the monopoly of violence) and thus the freedom of speech you say they are trumping over isn't even involved with them in the first place.

>There are two distinct situations which are not being defined here: the battlefield and the assembly place.

That's because this is not what anti-fascism is about nor involved with at all. Anti-Fascism is about stopping fascists form taking power in the current political environment and on the streets and in communities.

Im curious, what do you think people should do about fascism's violent agenda? do we just let the smash people heads in for no reasons because we would be violating their freedom of expression? Should we let people say that doing that would be a good thing and to advocate it cause it to happen more or at least making it more accepted instead of telling them to shut the fuck up because it would be violating their freedom of speech (which as we've seen it really inst).

>The key justification behind fighting fascists is that when they become militant and violent, so do we, and in those moments we are nothing more than separate tribes with a common hatred for capitalism.

Are you retarded? Really, read that over again, your saying that there absolutely nothing that separates anti-fascists from fascists because they use violence and both oppose capitalism. what about Marxists? Are Marxists fascists too because they are violent militants the oppose capitalism?
Violence and anti-capitalism does not equal fascism.

You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that fascism ultimately enforces the capitalist economic system, sure they don't mean to do this on purpose, its just kinda happens.

>What makes us better than them or the Marxists?

>If we use violence what really separates us from them?
>Except all that other stuff that separate's us, but who cares about that.

>It is our belief in both the freedom of the community AND the individual.

Ya, you know who doesn't believe in that and activity want to take that away via the use of violence and political manipulation? Fascists.

>What makes us better is that we believe in their freedom to express themselves as long as they are non-violent

>Fascist
>Non-violent

I don't know how to stress this. Fascists. Are. Not. Peaceful. That's one of the defining features of being a fascist.

>Just pointing out that is the easiest thing to become what you hate the most.

I severely doubt im going to become anal fisting.

>>7712
>Rights are just a synonym for power and freedom.

No, you brought up their right to assemble, not the freedom or power or what the fuck ever, you said the right. Don't just go redefining words because it suits your purposes.

>Rights come from, and are delegated by individuals, government or not.

No, really, they come from a government. Individuals have nothing to do with the creation and enforcement of Rights. Rights don't exist, rights are a social construct that don't have to be followed and frequently are not, by all sides. Rights mean absolutely jack shit.

> The right to free speech, the right to have an opinion is a protection from restraint, it's an idea that does not require government otherwise anarchists wouldn't even be able to protect themselves against fascists or the government in the first place because we wouldn't believe in our right to.

So what your saying is that without rights people would just kinda let governments do whatever they want to them regardless of what that is because they wouldn't think that they had the choice to fight back because the concept of rights wasn't addressed to them? Fucking nonsense.

>Just replace your use of the word anti-fascism with fascism and your use of the word antifascist with anarchist and you will realize they are out to do the exact same thing, so ethically you are on the same level at that point.

>If you just conveniently forget the definitions of words and the thousands of clear and obvious differences between Fascism, Anarchism and Anti-Fascism on a theoretical, practical and historical level then you are just as bad as them.

>>Violence and anti-capitalism does not equal fascism.

>Well these are qualities of fascists so I fail to see how this is correct in anyway.

They are also characteristics of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Venus fly traps and Honey Badgers. Are Honey Badgers Fascists? Cause by your definition they are.

>>the use of violence and political manipulation

>Is what both antifascists and fascists are guilty of.

Ya, guilty of doing to fucking fascists.

>Anti-fascists are anti-free speech

No, we arnt. Were anti-fascist.

>therefore they are authoritarians themselves

>Guys! You knows those people who are trying to prevent an even more violent fascists form gaining control of the government and our communities? They're really just totalitarians trying to trample the everyone freedom of speech! And by everyone we mean fascists and by freedom of speech we mean lies and misinformation aimed at further dividing our fellow man to the point were you want to kill them for literally no fucking reason.

>You are refusing to see a middle ground between the right to assembly and militant action.


Anti-fascist are the middle group. Military action against fascists would be more on the grounds of machine guns and artillery rather than "I think your ideas are shit and if you try to hurt me or my friends ill beat you with a stick"

> If you were to break up their assemblies without them having been guilty of violence themselves (I grant that this isn't often the case) as an anarchist I would protect them and accuse you of being a hypocrite and an authoritarian.

Anti-fascists arnt there to break up fascists assembley, they are their to directly counter them politically and if need be (the the need usually be) violently.

> Also if you feel so strongly this way about fascists then why aren't you taking this approach towards the police?

Because the police hold and keep a monopoly of violence and any action against them could kill me, get my family hurt, get my home destroyed and generally ruin my life because they can get away with it. Fighting the government violently isn't an effective strategy. fighting smaller scale violently fascist groups IS.

Please, tell me more about how we should just let the fascists do what they want, that's what you want right? You want them to be able to do whatever they want, recruit people and get even more power, spread more like the filth they are. And you want other people to do nothing because it would violate the fascist's fake rights, rights that they want to destroy themselves.

You think im full of contradictions? You want to essentially give the people who want to destroy your the ability to do so undisturbed because it would violate their rights.

Anti-fascist aren't perfect, they are supposed to be. But the alternative you purpose is complete and utter shit.

>>7700
>Another thing, why is it Anti-Free speech to have a rally against fascists

It's not. But If let's say I scream "I am a nazi, ayy lmao" in public and a anarchist bombs me, its a problem.


>>7709
>So do fascists . . .

Self preservation does not imply control and preservation of others behaviour.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

I'd rather just called it "free speech" and not "right to free speech". "free love" and not "right to marriage(proprietary™)"

>>7716
>>7718

Rights exist as much as anarchism itself does. As I said, they do not require governments and you aren't listening to a damn thing I'm saying. Rights are the same thing as power and freedom the words are synonymous.

>Fighting the government violently isn't an effective strategy.

Pussy! You'll fight edgy teenagers but you won't fight the real enemy? The only legitimate strategy is going after the real enemy, the ones with real authority, the military and the cops. You want to talk about effectiveness then that's the end goal.

>>7718
>>Another thing, why is it Anti-Free speech to have a rally against fascists>

>It's not. But If let's say I scream "I am a nazi, ayy lmao" in public and a anarchist bombs me, its a problem.

That would be a problem, if it actually happened like that at all.

>>7722
>Rights exist

They dont. Rights are a fictitious concept, they are imaginary, they don't exist in the physical world. Rights are not something you are guaranteed, rights as you think they are are broken everyday by various people in various places, not just by governments, but by organizations and individuals. Your "Rights" mean nothing, they wont stop you from getting thrown in jail, they wont stop you form getting physically harmed, they wont stop anything from taking away your "rights".

>they do not require governments

They don't if you decide to change the definition of the word to fit your own needs, which you seem to like doing.

>you aren't listening to a damn thing I'm saying

I am, your just saying a lot of nonsense and i don't really like dealing with nonsense.

>Rights are the same thing as power and freedom the words are synonymous.

Except they arnt. Civil rights would be a synonym for freedom. Rights are not. Stop changing the definitions of words.

>Pussy!

>Alright guys, were gonna attack the government. They got tanks, mine resistant vehicles, drones, trained soldiers with machine guns, snipers rifles and everything in between, bomber jets, heat seeking missiles and shit we dont even know about. so what do we have?
>We have baseball bats, pointy sticks, some chains and this paintball gun Greg found in a dumpster.

Ineffective strategy. Lets try that for fascist groups.

>Alright guys, were gonna fight the fascists before thy have any real power. They got some cars, baseballs bats, knives and probably some small arms. What do we have?
>Pretty much the same thing
>Well, it wont be easy, buts it possible.

Effective strategy.

>You'll fight edgy teenagers

Fascist arnt just edgy teenagers, have you ever even met a fascists or seen a fascist rally? There everyone from 2 years old to old senile people. Not to mention the usual age is around early 20s to 50 and usually men.

>The only legitimate strategy is going after the real enemy

And what are fascists again? Our fucking buddies down the bloc? They're as real of a threat as any other.

>the ones with real authority, the military and the cops

Who act like, wait for it….FASCISTS!

>You want to talk about effectiveness then that's the end goal.

Go out an shoot a cop then, see how far that gets you toward an anarchist society. You'll be found, put in jail, or killed. Wanna know why we don't just go around shooting and attacking cops and the military? It don't work. Wanna know why? They got to much power behind them. Fascists don't have a lot of power, not yet, and anti-fascists aim to keep it that way.

Why don't you think fascists are a legitimate threat anyway? Fascist's have been making huge wave's across the world in recent years, they anrt some back burner threat to be ignored. Is it the old "Well i haven't seen them so they don't effect me" thing? Cause that's what it sounds like, it sound like you don't have to deal with these groups regularly and because of that you don't think they're a threat.

>>7732
Replace the word 'right to free speech' with 'freedom to speak up for yourself' or 'power to free speech.' It's all the same shit. My right is my power to do something, my freedom to do something. That doesn't mean that if you believe you have a right to do something that you believe everybody has a right to do whatever they want in general.

If fascists are violent then be violent, if they aren't then you are the one acting like a douchey authority figure. Antifa are a bunch of edgy faggots just like modern fascists, neither of you respect each others right to have an opinion and your priorities are fucking retarded. Organized resistance is best aimed at the cops and the military otherwise you are just playing in the mud with a bunch of kiddies.

>>7732
To the extent that anybody no matter what creed or belief, imposes their authority with violence or 'safe space' policies, as anarchists we oppose this. What that means is that just because you call yourself an anarchist does not excuse your brand of authoritarianism. If someone merely claims to be a fascist, no matter how ignorant you think they are, it would be equally ignorant to deny them the ability to speak up for their beliefs. If the fascist isn't using violence then what kind of fascist is that anyway? When they do start using violence then the matter of deliberation has clearly been forgone. You are undermining people's ability to think and assess matters for themselves with your paternalistic policies. I can't accept that, as an anarchist, and also as an advocate of democracy.

>>7732
If you can't match words with words, or arguments with arguments then you yourself are incapable of participating in a democracy, which is essential to anarchism.

>>7745
>I'm trying to argue that anarchists reject other forms of socialism precisely because they act as the community's thought police.

That's one of the reasons sure, but that's not the only reason people are anarchists and no socialists. I could probably give you a different reason for every anarchist, with a few common ones, and that might not be one of them.

bump

>>7876
>too bad*
Sorry, I'm a bit tipsy and a non-native speaker

>>7899
Oh no why don't you cry about it. They'll surely seize to exist if you do.
Homophobia and sexism are things that do not exist because I don't experience it.
The process of reducing hierarchies does not at all extend beyond economics, let's just close our eyes and ignore the issues in the social sphere. I heard that's how you solve problems effectively.

>>7906
Economics is the essence of the social sphere you narrow minded little shit. Feminism is sexist, just as MRAs are. And so what about homophobia? Does that entail that somethinga s redundant as anarcho-queers should exist? Anarchists already espouse equality, hence any amount of feminism or 'anarcho-queers' is just more pointless factionalism. As anarchists we have a serious problem with these superficial titles we create that don't even entail anything philosophical.

>>7920
>Economics is the essence of the social sphere you narrow minded little shit.

Economics influences the social part of society, it is NOT the essence of the social part of society.

>Feminism is sexist
No, really, it isnt. Femanazi's are sexist, but femanazi's aren't feminists.

>Anarchists already espouse equality

So far so good

>hence any amount of feminism or 'anarcho-queers' is just more pointless factionalism.

I don't see how feminism would cause pointless factionalism, unless they were separating themselves from a sexist form of anarchism and in that case it wouldn't be pointless.

Did it ever occur to you that anarchist could be sexist and homophobic? Just because they shouldn't be ideologically dost mean that they don't exist.

>As anarchists we have a serious problem with these superficial titles we create that don't even entail anything philosophical.

Anarchism isn't a philosophy, anarchism is a political, economic, and social movement. But judging from you other posts, you wouldn't know the difference.

also sage cause you are fucking retarded.

>>7923
>No, really, it isnt. Femanazi's are sexist, but femanazi's aren't feminists.

muh no true scotsman

>I don't see how feminism would cause pointless factionalism, unless they were separating themselves from a sexist form of anarchism and in that case it wouldn't be pointless.

yes thats why anfems arent anarchists thanks

>Did it ever occur to you that anarchist could be sexist and homophobic? Just because they shouldn't be ideologically dost mean that they don't exist.

I don't think you know what anarchism is m80
are you an ayncrap in diguise

bump for relevancy