Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:15:32 +1000 (EST)
From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
Subject: Re: AUT: GA shit


Luther Blissettt wrote:

>What I am arguing is that these bourgeois rights have no substance, that
>they are rhetorical forms which serve to mask the reality of capitalist
>social relations.Actually what I am arguing is very othodox marxism from
>'On the Jewish Question' and his critique of Hegel's philosophy of right.
>In pointing this out I am not trying to claim any justification for these
>views from this, but to inform people on the list of readily available
>texts which have helped me develop my positions. I don't think that we have
>'rights', I think they are part of the ideological flotsam and jetsam
>produced by capitalist society

I've never taken the trouble to read 'On the Jewish Question' so I have no
idea whether your view is orthodox marxism or not. As far as 'rights' such
as freedom of speech being "flotsam and jetsam" of capitalism, your analogy
is seriously undermined by the unfortunate reality that capitalism is not
yet a wreckage, but continues to ply the waves!

I would argue that freedom of speech is something useful to capitalist
society, therefor it is one of the benefits of capitalism compared to the
preceding order, feudalism.

I'm truthfully afraid I just don't follow your argument that it has no
substance. As I say, I am ignorant of the texts you rely on for your
reference, so you will have to spell it out for me.
>
>
>>Putting aside the moral arguments, just from a practical angle it is one of
>>THE essential tools for building a better society. As such we must defend
>>it vigorously, not just for those with whom we agree, but especially for
>>those with whom we disagree.
>
>I do feel that this involves a seperation between speech acts and other
>acts. The class war is prosecuted by the bourgeoisie using both psychic and
>physical terror.

"Psychic"! You flatter them, surely?  I was hitherto unaware the capitalist
class possessed any paranormal capability. ;-)

>Fascist groups are part of this and they go around
>intimidating people. Often verbal abuse is sufficient to do this and
>physical violence is not used. According to you it seems that this is fine,
>that it must be defended vigorously.

According to me WHAT is fine? All I have said is that it is their right to
express their views. Intimidation, by which I take you to mean threats of
physical violence against others, are hardly included in the definition of
freedom of expression. Or do you see it differently?
>
>I find it hard to agree. When I see racist stickers, posters and graffitti
>I always do my best to obliterate them. From a practical angle this is
>important so that black people, jewish people, gays and lesbians and other
>who fall into the nazi's hate categories can feel more confident as they
>walk around the streets.

Why might it give them more confidence that someone is running around madly
trying to destroy the evidence of racism? You think minority groups are
otherwise unaware of it?

>A white mother with a mixed race child faced with
>graffitti calling for the murder of 'slags who go with blacks' feels
>intimidated, scared and worried that the people who produced that graffitti
>might still be around and might want to put their programme into action.
>
>But rather than removing such graffitti, if I understand you correctly, you
>are saying that it is 'one of THE essential tools for building a better
>society' that that mother and her child should be exposed to such views day
>after day after fucking day. When a gay removes an offensive anti-gay
>sticker, would you object to this? Would you assert the homophobes right to
>express their views through sticker campaigns?
>
>Words are powerful and can create or vary a political climate. Hate
>propaganda always has two effects:
>
>        It increases the likelihood of attacks on the target group.
>        It increases the level of stress the target group is living under.
>
>These two go hand in hand, and physical attacks always have their psychic
>component. One grows out of the other. Some people might feel comfortable
>about having an intellectual debate with people who think all Jewish people
>should be exterminate. But not many Jews would.

The idea of an intellectual debate with people who are so intellectually
stunted as you describe is of course laughable. If only we COULD subject
their ridiculous ideas to the daylight of reason I believe they would
wither and die. And that is precisely my point. Belief systems such as that
cannot survive critical debate, so to suppress them is to provide exactly
the kind of environment in which they thrive.

They prefer the dark recesses, they prefer to hide from critical debate, in
fact what they really love is to be suppressed! You think you are
destroying them, but instead you are protecting them by giving them an
excuse to hide from the light of reason!

> And those that would would
>probably be hard-core zionists who claim that anti-semitism is natural
>amongst non-jews and use this argument to justify a facsist jewish state.
>Indeed, it is often found that the organisers of neo-nazi groups are quite
>happy to collaborate with fascistic groups amongst the races they despice
>eg Nelson Rockefeller's collaboration with the Nation of Islam.
>
>I do not see how putting up with all this helps create a better society.

I don't advocate "putting up" with it, I advocate politically opposing it,
putting the lie to it, condemning it. You would simply silence them, which
does not destroy the IDEA, it only makes it harder to keep an eye on.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---