21/03/17

Ainda a questão da liberdade para os fascistas

Um texto defendendo a perspectiva contrária à que eu tenho defendido, mas com argumentos interessantes.

Responding to Fascist Organizing, por William Gills (Center for a Stateless Society):


[W]e would never want to give the state the capacity to determine what discourse is permissible, or to prosecute nazis for their beliefs (despite conservative hysteria by all accounts the vast majority of antifascist activists are anarchists who have consistently opposed state legislation and the “antifa bolts” famously stand for opposition to Bolshevism as well as fascism). The reality is that every individual is capable of greater perception and intelligence than the state, of directly seeing realities the state is structurally incapable of parsing. When a trusted friend tells you someone raped them you’ll likely cancel your date with him, even if your friend’s testimony alone wouldn’t and shouldn’t be sufficient to convict in a court of law. As autonomous individuals we can and should take actions that based on our more intimate and direct knowledge — knowledge it would be impossible to systematize or make objective in some legal system. It will always be possible to construct threats of violence sufficiently obscured as to be rendered invisible or plausibly deniable to some observers but crystal clear to the recipient(s). This is one of the innate failings of codified justice systems, abstracted to some level of collectivity, and part of the reason ethics enshrines individual agency above legality. (...)








There are, of course, complexities. Many authoritarian communists, for instance — despite similar totalitarian aspirations as explicit fascists — vary in degrees of self-awareness among their base about their hunger for power. Movements like Stalinism and Maoism depend on broad bases of leftist fools who swallow the simplistic doublethink necessary to see Assad or Bob Avakian as noble oppressed underdogs. Still, when anarchists have fought them in the streets, as for example in Athens or Minneapolis, there has appeared to result a shrink in their base, or at least a bluntening of their power. Certain currents in today’s alt-right follow a comparable dynamic, mixing self-aware authoritarians alongside psuedo-libertarian fools who swallow the doublethink necessary to see people organizing for racial genocide as allies and feminist media reviewers as dire enemies.

1 comentários:

Pedro Viana disse...

Olá Miguel,

Há aspectos interessantes no artigo, que não me parece tão antagónico relativamente à tua opinião como isso. Em particular, o artigo foca marchas e comícios, que como muito bem identifica, são mais manifestações de força do que propriamente discursos através dos quais se pretende manifestar uma opinião (como o era no caso FSCH). Ou seja, não são questões (directamente) relacionadas com a liberdade de expressão. Uma das fraquezas do artigo é esquecer que a força dum movimento (fascista) não é demonstrada apenas através de marchas e comícios, mas principalmente através da obtenção de vitórias em confrontos violentos. Ou seja, os fascistas procuram o confronto (vitorioso). Portanto, quanto mais fácil for encontrar adversários dispostos a esse confronto violento, em particular se estes forem facilmente provocáveis, entrando em confronto sem assegurar condições para derrotarem as milícias fascistas, mas facilitado está o caminho da afirmação fascista. Em resumo, a derrota do fascismo só será conseguida com clareza estratégica, através da contenção e procura das condições que assegurem a vitória em qualquer confronto (violento) que venha a acontecer.

Abraço,

Pedro