Author Topic: Anarchy vs. Fascism?  (Read 18164 times)

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #100 on: July 22, 2004, 12:00:40 AM »
I'm sure the Muslims (here and there) are a little touchy these days.   

True. (Not meant sarcastically.)

Legal definition of 'fighting words'

 Very interesting. Sounds fairly sensible.  I have never heard it used as a defense. I wonder if it is used regularly or successfully?

 However it is akin in some ways to blaming the victim, or perhaps in blurring the lines between who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. Forinstance, "What could she expect if she acted and dressed provocatively?" Or the Teena Brando case in which it was alleged that the victim instigated his/her own murder by inappropriate behaviors. Don't even get me started on the Haidl case. >:(

 The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech

 I think that sums it up quite well. Good Job. :)

 Well, it was just an excerpt from an article about the hate crime addendum that was passed, only a month ago, to add sexual orientation, gender, and disability

 It just seemed an obvious that it should be law and so I assumed it was law. :)



 



Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #101 on: July 22, 2004, 06:05:32 AM »
Legal definition of 'fighting words'

 Very interesting. Sounds fairly sensible.  I have never heard it used as a defense. I wonder if it is used regularly or successfully?
Interesting question; One that I don't have an answer for.  ..don't feel like looking for one, either.  :D  But, if I'm reading the quote correctly, it was used at least twice, successfully.

Quote
However it is akin in some ways to blaming the victim, or perhaps in blurring the lines between who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. For instance, "What could she expect if she acted and dressed provocatively?" Or the Teena Brando case in which it was alleged that the victim instigated his/her own murder by inappropriate behaviors. Don't even get me started on the Haidl case.
I think you're misunderstanding what it's saying, or I'm not following you.  Who the victim is would be uncontested; The perpetrator, the person using the word, bears the 'blame' (automatically guilty) for ..actually using the word.  The Fighting words doctrine says that they shouldn't have used the word in the first place.  I'd say it's one of the few "common sense" laws I've seen.  :)

Teena Brando, the girl that dressed like a boy?

Quote
The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech
 I think that sums it up quite well. Good Job. :)
Pat Blacks Law on the back, not me  ;D  (guess I should have made the quoted parts a bit more obvious.)

(cheers, btw  ;))
« Last Edit: July 22, 2004, 06:12:53 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #102 on: July 22, 2004, 10:28:26 AM »
Interesting question; One that I don't have an answer for.  ..don't feel like looking for one, either.    But, if I'm reading the quote correctly, it was used at least twice, successfully.

 That's alright. I think you have already done quite a bit of research.

 I think you're misunderstanding what it's saying, or I'm not following you.  Who the victim is would be uncontested; The perpetrator, the person using the word, bears the 'blame' (automatically guilty) for ..actually using the word.  The Fighting words doctrine says that they shouldn't have used the word in the first place.  I'd say it's one of the few "common sense" laws I've seen. 

 I agree it does seem a common sense law. Obviously if you speak "fighting words" at someone then the potential for an extreme reaction is great. Again yes, the word or words should not have been spoken. I assume the cases involved assault in response to the "fighting words" and the response was considered legally justified.

 I was just extrapolating that often a victim's behavior is used to negate a perpetrator's behavior or crime. Which may result in a blurring of lines between victim and perpetrator. At times it will make it very difficult to get a crime even into the legal system.

 A classic example is a rape victim, she was "provocative" hence she deserved the rape, she brought the crime upon herself.  It is also a fairly common human reaction. Not necessarily a fully negative response, I think probably people are simply horrified and uncomfortable with awful events and they try and find reasons why a terrible event occurred and how it can be avoided. Why the courts do it, I don't know.

 Potential consequence, deserved consequence, expected consequence etc. Just a glimpse into my undisciplined thought processes.  :D

 An Aside: I was watching "Monster" the other day and my main reaction was that murder was a possible consequence if you picked up prostitutes from a highway. Not a deserved consequence but a potential consequence.

Teena Brando, the girl that dressed like a boy?

 Oops Brandon and yes.

Pat Blacks Law on the back, not me    (guess I should have made the quoted parts a bit more obvious.)

 I realized but you found it and you put it up. You deserve the praise. ;)








Odruith

  • Guest
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #103 on: July 23, 2004, 11:41:17 PM »
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses." Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

J. Stalin - "Anarchism or Socialism?" 1907

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #104 on: July 24, 2004, 06:09:38 AM »
(^ Uh.. huh.. and?  :))

A classic example is a rape victim, she was "provocative" hence she deserved the rape, she brought the crime upon herself.  It is also a fairly common human reaction. Not necessarily a fully negative response, I think probably people are simply horrified and uncomfortable with awful events and they try and find reasons why a terrible event occurred and how it can be avoided. Why the courts do it, I don't know.

 Potential consequence, deserved consequence, expected consequence etc. Just a glimpse into my undisciplined thought processes.  :D
I think the 'she deserves what she got' is multi-faceted.  One of the facets being bias or jrejudice, another being a possible (and LAME) attempt at an explaination.

Quote
An Aside: I was watching "Monster" the other day and my main reaction was that murder was a possible consequence if you picked up prostitutes from a highway. Not a deserved consequence but a potential consequence.
Not familiar with that ..movie?  Well, yeah, but a potential consequence of eating is choking to death  ;D
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #105 on: July 24, 2004, 06:40:17 PM »

Not familiar with that ..movie?  Well, yeah, but a potential consequence of eating is choking to death  ;D

The biopic of Aileen Wournos. Starring Charlize Theron in an academy award winning performance. I once read a statistic that 5000 people were rushed to the emergency room every year for pillow induced injuries in the US.  Best not to overthink such stats.  :o

Sorry I am off topic again.  ;)

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #106 on: August 06, 2004, 06:08:14 AM »
A question I've been pondering lately:

How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
Why *did* you start this thread, anyway?
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #107 on: August 06, 2004, 06:46:18 AM »
Academic interest, I bet. :P Unrelated to any events anywhere else.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline neriana

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Female
    • Darien NPC for BG2
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #108 on: August 06, 2004, 08:01:03 PM »
A question I've been pondering lately:

How much control of speech makes free exchange in a community impossible, and how much is necessary to permit it?
Why *did* you start this thread, anyway?

Why do you care? That question's certainly not on topic. Do you want a full psychoanalysis of all my motivations or something?
The color of infinity inside an empty glass.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #109 on: August 06, 2004, 09:26:51 PM »
Er ..I suppose it was prompted by the fact that you started the thread and only commented on it once - In an OT comment, at that.  I was actually just curious.

peace, eh?  o_o
« Last Edit: August 06, 2004, 09:28:23 PM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline neriana

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Female
    • Darien NPC for BG2
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #110 on: August 06, 2004, 10:00:16 PM »
Believe it or not, I started the thread for exactly the reason I stated. I've been watching the discussion with interest and haven't had anything to add.
The color of infinity inside an empty glass.

Offline Joe

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Gender: Male
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #111 on: August 07, 2004, 10:25:35 PM »
Anarchism and fascism are extremes that should never, ever be reached by any society.

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #112 on: December 08, 2004, 06:35:36 PM »

 if 'reached by' means 'forced upon', we're in total agreement.  but that's not what i've ever taken 'reached' to mean.

 if 'reached' means 'achieved' or 'put into actual practice', wtf?  in the chase of anarchism*  - what's so unacceptably extreme about individuals holding themselves, by extension each other, accountable within a community/society?

 we've seen the damage fascism can do, yes.  at least there we have the benefit of more prolific documentation (e.g. of axis italy) - as opposed to anarchism (the spanish civil war being a slight exception, thanks in part to george orwell), which has major bogeyman residuals (and attendant fact-clouding) attached to it by centuries+ of various stati (stata?) quo.
  like all political philosophies that have ever been conceived, regardless of their relative/comparative 'success' or 'shelf life':  if not everybody in the great big petri dish agrees to it, it's doomed to 'exhibit flaws'.  i hope i won't be forced to trot out the truism that 'true democracy' is Mob Rule... :-*
 to carry that argument to capitalism for just a moment {forgive the OTness}: the market is not free.  the keel was never even - in recorded/historical memory.  and so on.  all forms of politics and economics have ideals that have never been actualized on a nationwide scale.

 *bonus points for using the term of political philosophy, not 'anarchy'.  i was hoping for more such precision to be established much earlier in the discussion - not that Joe was the first to do so, of course; i have indeed read all extant posts on the thread.  but this is what i would've piped in about first and foremost 'had i been there at the time'.
 
 eek.
 Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM 

  (emphasis theirs)
  actually, i find it very dubious (not to mention minor-league conspiracy-theory fodder ;)) that b and c are subsets of 1.  i would expect that kind of substantial difference (i.e. utopian society vs. state of disorder?) to warrant another digit instead of tacking on a 'c'.  it is also the only form that would routinely justify [structurally] the phrase "an anarchy".  idle shorthand for "anarchist utopia", i suppose.  (i'm sure it's logically justified by dint of their both being 'societal states', but that won't stop my eyebrow from a-raisin')
  not to mention that their inclusion of {3} is horribly lazy:  hello?! wasn't the point of developing the word 'anarchism' to distinguish it from its root in the first place?  not that i ever held the merriam-webster conglomerate in high esteem, mind you.
 
 wow, it gets worse! ::):
 Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
 
 (emphasis theirs)
 
 funny, i never knew gandhi was an anarchist.
 at least he wasn't an especial one.
 i hope we all remember this next time i discount someone's citation of a dictionary definition as though it's what 'we' have to go by. 

(but we must have structure!  order!  it has to start somewhere!)
(talk to the manus nigrum. :pirate)
 
  where is c-squirt, anyway?
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline discharger12

  • Truth?
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Gender: Male
  • k
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #113 on: December 08, 2004, 07:17:26 PM »
Just a question, but is anyone here an anarchist or fascist?

Offline Reverendratbastard

  • Perfunctory Psychopomp
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
  • Gender: Male
  • "to keep my metaphysics warm" -T.S.Eliot
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #114 on: December 08, 2004, 08:56:43 PM »
 
  ideals - anarchist.
  attitude - fascist.  :P
the lord of murder shall perish, yadda yadda yadda.

Offline Joe

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Gender: Male
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #115 on: December 15, 2004, 04:51:23 AM »
Anarchism shares with communism that it just looks good in theory. An anarchist society would never, ever survive, and has not ever in the history of the world.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #116 on: December 15, 2004, 06:15:39 AM »
Sadly that is a trait fascism does not share with them. :( It works very well in practise albeit only for a short while. After that period has expired the people responsible are either to old to be tried in courts or have successfullly brought their stolen wealth to other places and retired to France or the US.

@Discharger: All anarchists in the house say HO!

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html to find out, if you should.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Ghreyfain

  • PPG
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4705
  • Gender: Male
    • Pocket Plane Group
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #117 on: December 15, 2004, 03:26:06 PM »
Anarchism shares with communism that it just looks good in theory. An anarchist society would never, ever survive, and has not ever in the history of the world.

I can't think of a single political ideology that this doesn't apply to.  Except Canadianism, obviously.
Earn Money Sleeping.

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #118 on: December 15, 2004, 04:53:12 PM »
From what I hear Canadianism is not to bad. Even Churchill had to concede this somewhat.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Ghreyfain

  • PPG
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4705
  • Gender: Male
    • Pocket Plane Group
Re: Anarchy vs. Fascism?
« Reply #119 on: December 15, 2004, 09:33:25 PM »
Tommy Douglas and Pierre Trudeau, baby.  Where it's at.
Earn Money Sleeping.