Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 10:29:25 +0300
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: GA shit


Hi listers.

Luther Blissettt wrote:

> >Manuel Yang wrote:
> <snip>
> >Luther appears
> >to be taking the position that freedom of speech, being a bourgoise
> >ideology, is not worth defending. On the contrary, it does not matter
> >whether freedom of speech was a 'right' invented by the capitalist class,
> >what matters is whether we think it is something worth having.
>
> 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.

The concepts of "rights" is a core of the bourgeois ideology."Citizens rights"
were the substitute of "nobles privilege" of
the feudal class society.
I think that the equivalent for the above, in the communist libertarian space is
"egalitarian distribution of freedom".
This principle is more known as the claim that "the restriction of one's freedom
is "justified" only when it infringe on the freedom of others".
However, as most often the freedom of one is if not in contradiction at least in
friction with the freedom of others,
I prefer the shorter and more focus form of expressing the same content i.e.
"The egalitarian distribution of freedom".

Thus, when we fight against various instances, expressions and
demands to restrict the freedom of some one or "just a Nazi",
we do not have to use the bourgeois ideological concept of
"rights".
<split>

> I don't think that we have
> 'rights', I think they are part of the ideological flotsam and jetsam
> produced by capitalist society

I do not know if Luther Blissettt will agree with my claims above,
but I think we are on the same line of logic.

> >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.

For sure the freedom of speech is part of a person freedom, butjustifying it
with the bourgeois ideology of "rights" is both
misleading and missing a clear communist libertarian stand.

Looking at the Zionist and Nazi propaganda and other activities -
verbal, printed, graphics and physical from our point of view, to act
accordingly, will assess each case by itself. As all their activity is
clearly intended to infringe on the freedom of others, we better
fight them - at the present class society, and after it abolition, in a way that
will emphasis our principle of "egalitarian
distribution of freedom".
When we assess that a suggested act to restrict their freedom is
in balance with the infringement of freedom they try to inflict on
others, we better explain this in our terms and not in those of
the bourgeois ideology of "rights" or "conflict of rights"

> 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. 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.
>
> 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. 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.

As sexual harassment is not only in physical acts but also indirect and
"insinuating" verbal activity and even in hostile
environment - so it is in the racist abuse occurrences.

Whenever in doubt, one can use the clearer analogies for arriving
with the best conclusion in each case and in the wider approach.

> <snip>

> 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.

It infringe on their freedom!

> 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. 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.

(These are "sister" ideologies, that only happened to be in aconcrete clash of
interest in one way or the other.)

> 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.

We had in the history also a collaboration between Zionists and the Nazis and
clearly documented of a Zionist organization inPalestain seeking cooperation
with the Mussolini regime.

> I do not see how putting up with all this helps create a better society.

As long as communist libertarians continue to base themselveson remnants of
bourgeois ideology of "rights" (like the use of
their "class analyzes") they will arrive to very strange positions.

Ilan Shalif
http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy/
http://flag.blackened.net/ishalif/anarchy.html
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3150/Anarchy.html
http://www.geocities.com/~drilanshalif/content1.htm
Tel-Aviv 61132 ISRAEL (Occupied Palestain)





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