Anarchism = Nazism? Get a load of this...
Bryan Cowan
This is they type of response that I get when I try to push
anarchist/libertarian ideas. This guy really believes that the Spanish
anarchists of 1936 were Nazis. 50 years of propaganda have given the
American people the idea that any ideas opposed to the Constitution are
evil. In their minds, Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same
coin, and that there are two ideologies in the world: American
constitutionalism, which is equated with freedom, and Communazism, which
is equated with slavery. The last 60 years has seen the most sucessful
propaganda campaign ever mounted by any government. People really
believe that the Constitution guarantees freedom. Of course, human
freedom isn't the Constitution's to guarantee; it's a basic right, not a
privilege granted by government fiat. Article follows. Any idea how to
respond to people who won't even read a website?
-------------cut here------------
Path:
Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnp
lanet.com!dallas-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldfeed.g
te.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail
From: "Harrison" <star...@gte.net>
Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000
Subject: Re: We must activate the militia
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:55:44 -0700
Organization: gte.net
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <6ktj4u$mkj$1...@gte2.gte.net>
References: <35720F59...@crl.com> <6ktfsn$66d$3...@supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust207.tnt3.everett2.wa.da.uu.net
X-Auth: C51F9518439AC88B4BCA8491
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Xref: Supernews70 comp.software.year-2000:57426
Bryan -
I must ascribe it to your headstrong youth -
The Spanish anarchist link is to the last remnants of the 60-year-old
connection to the National Socialist movement in Europe. It was the 30's
style propaganda arm of the National Socialist Movement. Perhaps you
might
better recognize the National Socialist movement by its more pejorative
short nickname: Nazi.
I lived then, Bryan, I live now.
Those forces are dead. And gone.
The diabolical powers loose in the world today are International
Socialist,
not National. Recognize as Friedrich Heyek noted, the 'battle for
like-minded souls'. Are you one of those?
We're not, out here.
Bryan Cowan wrote in message <6ktfsn$66d$3...@supernews.com>...
>In article <35720F59...@crl.com>, j...@crl.com says...
>>
>>One of the most important measures we need to take to meet the coming
>crisis
>>is to activate the militia. In other words, we need to organize,
train,
>and
>>equip the entire population to help manage the situation.
>>
>>For those of you who may have bought the disinformation being
>orchestrated
>>against the militia movement, think again, and find out about what the
>militia
>>movement is really about at http://www.constitution.org/
>>
>>The Y2K crisis is not the only reason we need to mobilize the
>population in
>>this way. We also face other threats, such as terrorism using weapons
>of mass
>>destruction, such as anthrax, or natural disasters, or floods of
>refugees from
>>Mexico.
>>
>>There is no way that government is going to be adequate to deal with
>problems
>>of this kind. The only countries in the world today who are anywhere
>near
>>being prepared for the challenges we face are Switzerland and Israel,
>because
>>they have strong militia systems.
>>
>>We also need to revive the militia tradition to rebuild the sense of
>community
>>that has been lost as a result of modern trends in urbanization and
the
>>distractions of entertainment media.
>>
>>Naturally, the criminal establishment is opposed to the militia
>movement,
>>because it is the first effective opposition it has faced, but even
the
>>establishment may come to realize that it needs the people, organized,
>>trained, and equipped as the militia, to save it.
>
>We might consider trying the Spanish system of anarchist militias that
>was used to temporarily hold off the fascists in 1936 and 1937. (They
>were only defeated because they ran out of weapons and ammo, which is a
>potential problem here too.) This would prevent militia commanders from
>becoming warlords if the militia managed to hold on to a portion of
>land. This would also give a greater sense of participation to the
>members of the militia, since they would be actively participating in
>offensives instead of passively taking orders. A good website on
>anarchism in Spain is http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html. If
>anybody is interested in establishing a system where people take direct
>control of their lives through direct action instead of waiting for
>leaders to solve their problems, and where freedom is considered a
basic
>right instead of a privilege given by governments, see
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/.
>
David Rolfe Graeber
Bryan Cowan (xm...@xmidtownx.xnetx) wrote:
> This is they type of response that I get when I try to push
> anarchist/libertarian ideas. This guy really believes that the Spanish
> anarchists of 1936 were Nazis. 50 years of propaganda have given the
> American people the idea that any ideas opposed to the Constitution are
> evil. In their minds, Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same
> coin, and that there are two ideologies in the world: American
> constitutionalism, which is equated with freedom, and Communazism, which
> is equated with slavery. The last 60 years has seen the most sucessful
> propaganda campaign ever mounted by any government. People really
> believe that the Constitution guarantees freedom. Of course, human
> freedom isn't the Constitution's to guarantee; it's a basic right, not a
> privilege granted by government fiat. Article follows. Any idea how to
> respond to people who won't even read a website?
Maybe just ignore them?
But if their position is really as you describe
(there are two alternatives, the US Constitution or
slavery) then you might want to point out that the US
Constitution specifically allows slavery. Also, Abraham
Lincoln, among others, used to regularly state that
what made democracy in America possible was the lack
of "any permanent class of wage laborers", since until
the rise of corporate capitalism in the late 19th century
everyone assumed that wage labor and slavery were
not fundamentally different, and almost equally
inimical to freedom.
As for Spanish anarchists, the guy is
either practicing a big lie approach or he's
utterly confused. He's unreachable. His audience
might not be.
> -------------cut here------------
> >
> >We might consider trying the Spanish system of anarchist militias that
> >was used to temporarily hold off the fascists in 1936 and 1937. (They
> >were only defeated because they ran out of weapons and ammo, which is a
> >potential problem here too.) This would prevent militia commanders from
> >becoming warlords if the militia managed to hold on to a portion of
> >land. This would also give a greater sense of participation to the
> >members of the militia, since they would be actively participating in
> >offensives instead of passively taking orders. A good website on
> >anarchism in Spain is http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html. If
> >anybody is interested in establishing a system where people take direct
> >control of their lives through direct action instead of waiting for
> >leaders to solve their problems, and where freedom is considered a
> basic
Nice appeal. I might suggest that anarchist
militia organizations can probably work pretty well
for defending a territory but not for major operations
like coordinated offensives and whatnot. I've always
suspected that the reasons why mass-based anarchist
movements started to fall apart right around the
start of WW I and were largely replaced by Marxists
of one stripe or another was that the Marxists
had organizations totally conducive to creating
modern killing machines and the anarchists didn't.
The late 19th century was (at least in the
capitalist core states) a century of peace; the
20th century has largely been one of war and
permanent war economies. Thus when Marxists and
Marxist historians like Hobsbawm mock anarchists
for being politically ineffective that's what they
really mean: 'unable to construct efficient
modern killing machines'. I say rather than
defend ourselves on the same terms ('yes we
can too!') we should point out that maybe this
is a good quality in anarchism, not a bad one.
DG
Dan Clore
David Rolfe Graeber wrote:
> Bryan Cowan (xm...@xmidtownx.xnetx) wrote:
> > >We might consider trying the Spanish system of anarchist militias that
> > >was used to temporarily hold off the fascists in 1936 and 1937. (They
> > >were only defeated because they ran out of weapons and ammo, which is a
> > >potential problem here too.) This would prevent militia commanders from
> > >becoming warlords if the militia managed to hold on to a portion of
> > >land. This would also give a greater sense of participation to the
> > >members of the militia, since they would be actively participating in
> > >offensives instead of passively taking orders. A good website on
> > >anarchism in Spain is http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html. If
> > >anybody is interested in establishing a system where people take direct
> > >control of their lives through direct action instead of waiting for
> > >leaders to solve their problems, and where freedom is considered a
> > basic
I don't know very much about the Spanish militias' organization, but
that of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine looks ideal.
Quote from Arshinov's _History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918-1921)_:
The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organized according to three
fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle,
and self-discipline.
_Voluntary enlistment_ meant that the army was composed only of
revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
_The electoral principle_ meant that the commanders of all the units of
the army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other
positions in the army, were either elected by the insurgents of the unit
in question or by the whole army.
_Self-discipline_ meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up
by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the
various outfits; once approved, they had to be rigorously observed on
the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander.
> Nice appeal. I might suggest that anarchist
> militia organizations can probably work pretty well
> for defending a territory but not for major operations
> like coordinated offensives and whatnot. I've always
> suspected that the reasons why mass-based anarchist
> movements started to fall apart right around the
> start of WW I and were largely replaced by Marxists
> of one stripe or another was that the Marxists
> had organizations totally conducive to creating
> modern killing machines and the anarchists didn't.
> The late 19th century was (at least in the
> capitalist core states) a century of peace; the
> 20th century has largely been one of war and
> permanent war economies. Thus when Marxists and
> Marxist historians like Hobsbawm mock anarchists
> for being politically ineffective that's what they
> really mean: 'unable to construct efficient
> modern killing machines'. I say rather than
> defend ourselves on the same terms ('yes we
> can too!') we should point out that maybe this
> is a good quality in anarchism, not a bad one.
What solution would there be to this basic problem? -- One immediately
suggests itself. Governments generally seem to show a lot more
hesitation about mass killing when their deeds are put directly into the
court of public opinion (and its repercussions through other
governments, etc). A case in point is the Zapatistas' use of the
Internet to spread news about their struggles (it goes without saying
that the mainstream media largely have to be bypassed in this strategy).
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
David Rolfe Graeber
Dan Clore (cl...@columbia-center.org) wrote:
(Oh: I wrote:)
Sounds good to me. I guess our greatest hope
is that, if the next century is not dominated by
endless violent conflict, it'll be much harder for
the powers that be to justify crushing anarchist
experiments that are basically peaceful in nature.
Oh, they'll come up with all sorts of propaganda
techniques for justifying how the most peaceable
anarchists are a threat to everyone ("they could
be harboring terrorists!", etc) but as the Zapitistas
have shown, without the Cold War, people won't
necessarily buy it.
Some of the most successful forms of
revolutionary resistance involve making a direct
appeal to the troops in the same way: in most
revolutions (Russian, Spanish, even Chinese)
there were cases where whole units, even whole
armies, melted away and either went over to the
other side or simply went home. Even in Tianamen
the Chinese apparently had to use Moslem troops
from Central Asia who didn't speak Chinese very
well, and dope them up on huge amounts of speed
before they'd fire on civilians. In the (non-
violent, and hence unreported) Malagasy revolution
of 1991/92 the protestors developed the
expedient of finding out the parents of troops
in the security forces that would be used in
any crackdown and then having their own parents
who knew them talk to them, so they'd then
pressure there children not to follow any
orders to shoot civilians. It apparently
worked. But that's more of a small-scale
society.
DG
Hnikar
Brian, these days anyone who disagrees with anyone, but who lacks the
intellectual ability and commitment to truth to debate the points of
disagreement, calls their opponents "Nazi!"
The clash between the Scientologists and the German Government these
days has each side comparing the other to "Nazis!", and that's the case
in more and more conflicts- to hear one side to tell it, the other side
is "Nazi!" and vice versa.
I have an image in my mind of an archaeologist sifting through various
of our era's documents at some time in the distant future, seeing that
everyone from Trotsky, to Limbaugh, to Clinton, to Israel, to the
anarchists are referred to as Nazis and trying to figure out, based on
their actual beliefs, just what a "Nazi!" was.
The term has become an epithet, all too often used for mere effect
rather than retaining its meaning.
Hnikar
AOR/AFA/Raven Kindred AA (Honorary)
Hnikar's Folkish Asatru Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5056/ (including Odin's Nation
News)