Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 09:57:03 +1000 (EST)
From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
Subject: Re: AUT: GA shit


Rob Brown wrote:

[...] no, you're not , unless you start going around advocating lynching
>black people.
>its really not that hard to figure out. i argue with people like you and
>about these things , with fascists i fight fire with fire. and don't tell
>me  you have a problem figuring out who the fascists are.

Well said, except fighting fire with fire is precisely what you are NOT
advocating. Instead you propose to counter rhetoric with physical force. I
follow your reasoning, that the rhetoric used by some people inevitably
leads to violence, but the great danger is that your tactics only justify
fascist violence.

After all, they would be able to plausibly argue that they were only
defending themselves. Your tactics involve abandoning the moral high ground
to the enemy.

BTW, I'm not all that sure who the fascists are, I envy your certainty. But
that's another question which I'll try to avoid.

[...]

>again this is not as complex as you make it out. i don't support the right
>of the State to do anything except go off in a corner and die.
>Anti-fascists have to stop the fascists and that includes denying them a
>public forum.

"Why? Why are you more afraid of their words than their actions?" "Do you
fear a contest of ideas with these people?"

Sorry about that, as I say I follow your argument and realise that such is
not the case, but you must surely see that this is what many will think.
There lies another danger - adding credibility to the fascist message,
appearing to have no answer to what they say.

What are people supposed to think when they hear you say that you will use
force to stop them espousing their political message, and when they hear
you cite possible future physical violence by the fascist's audience as
your justification for ACTUAL physical violence by you in the here and now?

You see my point? You see the danger? Of course public attitudes towards
fascist ideology is quite hostile and you might get away with it. You might
even win public support for such tactics. But what do you achieve - except
to fritter away political capital on a scheme which will win more converts
to fascism than to your own side?


> Your inability to see anyone else except the capitalist
>State, a fascist body  itself, as capable of stopping fascism says a lot
>about your politics. We all have to make political judgements about what
>people and movements are a physical threat to our safety and act
>accordingly. But you go ahead and debate the fascists and see what happens.
>bob brown

Let's be absolutely clear, I totally reject the notion that your tactics
are capable of "stopping fascism", so the idea that I am arguing that only
the capitalist state can stop fascism is absurd. I was actually arguing
that only the state has the resources to effectively censor the fascist
message.

Actually, even that is going too far, nothing can prevent them from getting
their message out, thus an anti-fascist strategy which hinges on effective
censorship of the fascist political message is doomed. I don't intend to
rely on the state any more than you, although I think your accusation that
the state is fascist is a little over the top.

Of course I don't know where you live, apologies if you do live under a
fascist regime, and

Solidarity,

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.








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