So, SOME ideological pacifists believe so strongly that all action should be non-violent that they will use any tactic to stop violence in a demo, including the morally questionable.
Yeah, but the problem is ALL pacifists, not just the ones that would rather punch someone for breaking the window of some bank. Because pacifism is the ideological conviction that non-violence is the only legitimate tactic and therefore they won’t work cohesively with groups or individuals that aren’t pacifist. If they happen to be people that accept violence as a tactic but don’t personally want to engage in it themselves, then they aren’t a pacifist. Big difference.
It trikes me as strange that pacifist should be singled out for claiming movements as their own. When black bloc types start smashing and breaking things, they are doing just that. Violence drowns out all other voices and effectively becomes the only voice.
Don’t be fucking ridiculous. Black bloc is a tactic, it can be used well or it can be used poorly depending on the situation. There’s a difference between having a debate about whether or not it’s a contextually suitable tactic, compared to outright claiming ownership of a movement and saying that people are excluded as a result.
I have never seen a “black bloc type” walk about to a union worker who’s on a demonstration and say “you’re not radical enough, get off of my march”. I have seen middle class assholes shouting at people for being masked up, when state profiling and repression of activists (especially youths who don’t necessarily have the backing of a union) is very much a reality. ”Get off of my demonstration, you have no right to be here” – without any discussion about why the mask was worn, why that may or may not be suitable, and without consideration that this was a demonstration outside the conservative party conference and despite which specific group first called for the demo it could hardly be claimed by individuals. This sort of behaviour of possessiveness, prejudice and exclusion is damaging to a movement.
It’s an attitude you seem to share though.
This is where you become problematic.
No it’s not.
This is sort of a generalized screed that essentially says, pacifists act like X (they don’t care about anybody but themselves)
Definitively, pacifists will not meet to resist fascists. That’s why they’re a pacifist – because they’ll avoid conflict instead of meeting it where necessary. Yeah, it’s a “generalised screed” if you want to look at it that way, but it’s also integral to the definition of a pacifist. If a person wouldn’t act that way then they’re not truly a pacifist.
and socialists/anarchists act like Y (heroically down with the oppressed from the start.)
Erm. Yes, because it’s a part of especially socialist creed that you take on the responsibility of combatting fascism. Anarchists do so as well, consistently today and historically. Antifa and united fronts against fascism are largely organised by anarchist and socialist groups. It is NOT a part of the creed for liberals, for social democrats and so on. It is especially not a part of the creed for pacifists.
That’s how shit goes. On a UAF march there tends to be some Lib Dems and a few Labourites but the majority of the people there tend to be socialists and/or punks and/or anarchists. It’s like a reunion.
This is a borderline ad hominem and incredibly glib but assuming it is true, it does not make them fascist.
lurn 2 reed.
>Pacifism isn’t fascist it’s pro-fascist,
Pacifism IS NOT fascist, it is PRO-fascist.
Pacifism IS NOT fascist, it WORKS IN FAVOUR of fascism.
Pacifism IS NOT fascist, it is FAVOURABLE OF fascism.
lurn 2 reed.
Doing something that has the effect of benefiting fascists does not make one a fascist, repugnant, maybe, misguided, maybe, but still not a fascist. I also find it a bit naive and somewhat arrogant to talk of bourgeois radicals being somehow effective and important in standing in defense of targeted groups.
In defence of? That is a term I know I didn’t use, because I specifically would not say that. It isn’t about defending a group it’s about standing with them. It’s about solidarity, about building relationships with groups and working with them for a better, stronger community rather than being atomised by capitalist society.
Don’t project your own arrogance and insecurities onto others. Just because your brain only computes it in one way, doesn’t make that the fact of the matter.
Your bourgeois radicalism is better than their bourgeois radicalism. Anarchism especially is predominately found in middle class white folk who are affluent enough and have enough political influence to think they have a degree of control, that their voice is listened to by the ruling elite.They must be racist, too.
Middle class=/=bourgeois. Re-read your Marx. They can be used interchangeably at points, but the contemporary definition of middle-class does not fit with the definition of bourgeois. I also specifically find that not to be the case with anarchists that I’ve known but of course feel free to generalise, just as you lambast me for apparently doing.
Anarchism also specifically doesn’t function in that fashion – anarchism is specifically not about making pleas of the ruling elite. I’m not really that bothered though, it’s not like I’m an anarchist and I’m sure many other people may have something to say about it.
Protip: it was unquestioned in the debate, here. Slight examination reveals it as dumb, so it must not have been questioned.
Yeah, but it wasn’t just me arguing that point and I didn’t make any of the original claims on the matter. However you decided to argue with specifically me about it, rather than reblogging one of the posts on the matter so everybody who’d been involved in the discussion would be included. Slight examination reveals you don’t have a fucking clue how to read and after that your entire argument falls apart, so whatever man. It has been questioned, rigorously, and still continues to have currency in discussion.
I’m questioning whether or not you’re a really crap troll or genuinely don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re not actually coming back on the points which are being made, just making glib general statements that aren’t consistent with the rest of the discussion going on.