Violent Confrontations [Archive]

Radical

18th June 2009, 02:12

Recently I've been thinking alot about weather I believe violent confrontations on the likes of the BNP are counter-productive or not. For example, this past week here in the UK, the group "Unite Against Fascism" attacked Nick Griffin of the BNP with eggs. This turned out to be extremily counter productive with the BBC recieving thousands of complaints from non-supporters of the BNP about how they believed the attacks were wrong and unjust. Lots of people believe that the reason the BNP are growing is because of the publics ignorance. I spoke with a politics interlectual today at college and he beleives the best way to fight the BNP is by unvailing their racist policies through words to show to the world what they really advocate.

The leader of the attack was tested when the BBC confrunted her with an interlectial debate. She was unable to respond with any good reasoning but a long rant. Not only did this make us as Revolutionarys look like thugs, but it also made the whole attack fire back on us. The women couldent give any reason as to why she chose to attack Nick Griffin violently.

I do advocate Attacks, Armed Revolution and Assassinations in some circumstances. But I'm begenning to wonder weather the violent confrontations on the street are actually helping us.

What are your thoughts?

Jack

18th June 2009, 02:51

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 02:56

Demogorgon

18th June 2009, 02:58

Scum deserve to be beaten, no matter what the reaction. I would say they didn't go far enough, the streets must run red to teach fascists a lesson. No matter the public opinion, they can not be allowed to show themselves.
What exactly is going to be gained from this if it increases support for fascism?

Some people have an emotional reaction causing them to want to respond with violence (which kind of sacrifices the moral high ground apart from anything else) but it plainly doesn't achieve anything. All the thuggery in the world won't change the fact that parties like the BNP have support. Even if that support is redirected back to the Tories, the racism won't go away. And that has to be our focus, not a desire to re-fight the Battle of Cable Street.

RedMonty

18th June 2009, 03:01

Scum deserve to be beaten, no matter what the reaction. I would say they didn't go far enough, the streets must run red to teach fascists a lesson. No matter the public opinion, they can not be allowed to show themselves.

That' ridiculous. There is a time and a place for violence. Violence should not be glorified in itself, but should be utilised as a means to an end. When violent tactics merely serve to alienate the very people we are trying to win over that is counter-productive.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:04

Long live tyranny! :rolleyes:

So we should let them run amok? We should let them continue to be a threat, and sometimes directly attack, our comrades, or families, our communities?

A fascist walking down the street is a threat to me and my community, and they should be treated as such. They must be dealt with in the only way that they understand, violence. If we can't get the truth through their thick skulls then it needs to be beaten into them.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:05

That' ridiculous. There is a time and a place for violence. Violence should not be glorified in itself, but should be utilised as a means to an end. When violent tactics merely serve to alienate the very people we are trying to win over that is counter-productive.

Beating fascists is not a representative of Leftism, it may be done by Leftists, but it is not a central pillar of any socialist ideology.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:07

What exactly is going to be gained from this if it increases support for fascism?

Some people have an emotional reaction causing them to want to respond with violence (which kind of sacrifices the moral high ground apart from anything else) but it plainly doesn't achieve anything. All the thuggery in the world won't change the fact that parties like the BNP have support. Even if that support is redirected back to the Tories, the racism won't go away. And that has to be our focus, not a desire to re-fight the Battle of Cable Street.

It doesn't increase support for them, it may increase sympathy but only as much as liberals sympathize with us, once shit goes down they're nowhere to be found.

Last I checked, Cable Street fucked over Mosley's blackshits pretty well, they didn't have any support after that.

Il Medico

18th June 2009, 03:09

Scum deserve to be beaten, no matter what the reaction. I would say they didn't go far enough, the streets must run red to teach fascists a lesson. No matter the public opinion, they can not be allowed to show themselves.
Fascist and Neo-Nazis in America use these tactics, they are almost univerally hated for it. They are better handled with words. Attacks create sympathy for the victim, no matter how much of a scumbag they are.

RedMonty

18th June 2009, 03:12

Beating fascists is not a representative of Leftism, it may be done by Leftists, but it is not a central pillar of any socialist ideology.

If you're trying to build a movement, engaging in action that alienates the people who are needed for that movement to suceed is a stupid idea.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:13

Fascist and Neo-Nazis in America use these tactics, they are almost univerally hated for it. They are better handled with words. Attacks create sympathy for the victim, no matter how much of a scumbag they are.

Which is why they need to be combatted in the same fashion. You don't win a war by saying the enemy is an asshole. You win wars by forcing the enemy to capitulate, and this is a fucking war.

Fascist ideology is hated as it is, if they were sitting around a tree singing "Kumbaya, kill a nigger", they're not going to be looked upon more positively or negatively than when they shoot a security guard.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 03:15

So we should let them run amok? We should let them continue to be a threat, and sometimes directly attack, our comrades, or families, our communities?
They do not attack you, they have not coerced you; you have no right to even touch their person.

I also love your use of "We" because truly most in society would much rather be at peace than let you run the streets red with all who dare blaspheme the sacred name of socialism. Really, what is different between you, and them when you willing to hack them down without even a fair trial, without even the slightest prevocation?

A fascist walking down the street is a threat to me and my community, and they should be treated as such. They must be dealt with in the only way that they understand, violence. If we can't get the truth through their thick skulls then it needs to be beaten into them.
It is possible for various groups in society to coexist peacefully, but of course, when it is "We" against "Them" fantasy there are only two sides to choose from.

gorillafuck

18th June 2009, 03:15

Scum deserve to be beaten, no matter what the reaction. I would say they didn't go far enough, the streets must run red to teach fascists a lesson. No matter the public opinion, they can not be allowed to show themselves.
Totally. In a non-revolutionary period, we should definitely portray ourselves as violent street thugs.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:16

If you're trying to build a movement, engaging in action that alienates the people who are needed for that movement to suceed is a stupid idea.

Its not alienating to fight against a threat to the movement. Even if it was, it doesn't matter because if these scum get the chance they will kill you. So for now it's best to skirmish with them to keep them at bay.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 03:17

Beating fascists is not a representative of Leftism, it may be done by Leftists, but it is not a central pillar of any socialist ideology.
The "US" against "Them" social theory of socialism is what leads you to commit murder, it is a stain on the name of any movement individuals like yourself decide to join with.

RedMonty

18th June 2009, 03:19

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 03:21

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:22

They do not attack you, they have not coerced you; you have no right to even touch their person.

I also love your use of "We" because truly most in society would much rather be at peace than let you run the streets red with all who dare blaspheme the sacred name of socialism. Really, what is different between you, and them when you willing to hack them down without even a fair trial, without even the slightest prevocation?

It is possible for various groups in society to coexist peacefully, but of course, when it is "We" against "Them" fantasy there are only two sides to choose from.

Don't give me the coercion bullshit, would you like me to wait? Lets consider the Second World War an offense by them against my family (many members kicked Nazi ass), or how about their oppression of the FAUD? Should I not involve myself in conflicts to defend innocents just because I personally haven't been shot by fascists? Hell, lets say that all actions taken are in the name of the security guard they just killed.

The only good fascist is a dead fascist, I'm not going to "coexist" with them.

RedMonty

18th June 2009, 03:22

I wonder, with statements like these, what are the differences between you, and fascists?

How does this make me similar to a fascist?

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:23

Totally. In a non-revolutionary period, we should definitely portray ourselves as violent street thugs.

Why procrastinate?

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:24

I wonder, with statements like these, what are the differences between you, and fascists?

So violence against opponants that would have you dead=Fascism. Damn those rape victims who fight back, fucking Fascists!

gorillafuck

18th June 2009, 03:27

Why procrastinate?
Because people tend to not like violent street thugs.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:30

Because people tend to not like violent street thugs.

Well, if left alone they will only expand, especially with a poor economic climate. Therefor, if we take them out while they are weak (well, kind of, Stormfront is about 70 times the size of RevLeft) it means that socialists will have cornered the market are attracting people due to a lack of faith in the current shape of capitalism.

How many more have to die at the hands of the fascists before you feel it's okay to strike back?

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 03:33

Don't give me the coercion bullshit, would you like me to wait? Lets consider the Second World War an offense by them against my family (many members kicked Nazi ass), or how about their oppression of the FAUD? Should I not involve myself in conflicts to defend innocents just because I personally haven't been shot by fascists? Hell, lets say that all actions taken are in the name of the security guard they just killed.
And yet looked what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che Guerva, and club did, had I lived under any of them I would be not be alive now to speak to you, I would have been killed because of the ideas that I hold. They all have the blood of thousands of innocents upon their hands, they killed FAR MORE than the fascists did, and you are going to lecture me about what the fascists did?

The only good fascist is a dead fascist, I'm not going to "coexist" with them.
Then please, go to the wilderness where beasts like you belong, society is created by men who are able to coexist despite their differences, and cooperate even if they might no agree - peaceful society is about renouncing violence as a means.

Quite honestly, Jack, why the hell do you have "Youth Peace" as your organization seeing that you would not mind treading over the lives of many in order to achieve your goals.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 03:34

So violence against opponants that would have you dead=Fascism. Damn those rape victims who fight back, fucking Fascists!
Laugh it off as much as you want, but I see no reason in differentiating between political ideologies that preach mass killing.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:41

And yet looked what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che Guerva, and club did, had I lived under any of them I would be not be alive now to speak to you, I would have been killed because of the ideas that I hold. They all have the blood of thousands of innocents upon their hands, they killed FAR MORE than the fascists did, and you are going to lecture me about what the fascists did?

Yeah, anarchists and Leninists have duked it out in the past, why would you attack an anarchist about the actions of people he doesn't like? That's like me attacking you for the crimes of Musollini or Hitler, just because you both support the property rights and class position of the bourgeoisie.

Then please, go to the wilderness where beasts like you belong, society is created by men who are able to coexist despite their differences, and cooperate even if they might no agree - peaceful society is about renouncing violence as a means.

Quite honestly, Jack, why the hell do you have "Youth Peace" as your organization seeing that you would not mind treading over the lives of many in order to achieve your goals.

So you mean not wanted to be killed or oppressed is beast like?

Youth Peace is an anti-militarist (as in state militarism) group. I don't care about the lives of scum, does that make me a bad person? Because you would let good, honest people die in the streets as it is. Capitalism kills more than any man ever has.

Perhaps you should sulk back on over to Mises so you can talk about Our Glorious Leader Comrade Mises and have a circle jerk on The Fountainhead.

#FF0000

18th June 2009, 03:51

Laugh it off as much as you want, but I see no reason in differentiating between political ideologies that preach mass killing.

Way to troll.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:14

Way to troll.
Have you seen his previous comments! He is advocating the mass killing of innocents!

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:19

So you mean not wanted to be killed or oppressed is beast like?
The willingness to kill those who have never wronged you hitherto is an action to be relegated to animals, and beasts.

Youth Peace is an anti-militarist (as in state militarism) group. I don't care about the lives of scum, does that make me a bad person?
All that the state militarists are doing is killing others before they attack them. Both you, and them have deluded yourselves into thinking such killing is right, and refuse to live in harmony with those who disagree with you.

Because you would let good, honest people die in the streets as it is. Capitalism kills more than any man ever has.
I'm not willing to see innocents killed in the streets either, that is what your policies are. Just because individuals are fascists does not mean they do not deserve justice.

Perhaps you should sulk back on over to Mises so you can talk about Our Glorious Leader Comrade Mises and have a circle jerk on The Fountainhead.
And I was accused of trolling?

Rosa Provokateur

18th June 2009, 04:19

Leo Tolstoy covered violence as a whole in his book, "the Kingdom of God is Within You". Violence is a tool of the State; it relies on coercion, force, etc. to retain power and once it has us in a violent situation it knows how to handle things.

Mass non-violence not only works but the State doesnt know how to handle it, it cant workably threaten people who are un-afraid to suffer in the struggle for liberation.

Radical

18th June 2009, 04:20

. You don't win a war by saying the enemy is an asshole. You win wars by forcing the enemy to capitulate, and this is a fucking war.

You win a war by using the best tactics for destroying the enemy. In the current BNP's case I believe its through words.
If we use violence against them at this point, it will be counter-productive and back fire on us.

We need to realise that they will gain smypathy if we attack a party that is purely trying to gain power through the electorial system. It is our desire as Revolutionary's to gain support from the masses. We wont achieve this if people think we're thugs that are breaking the law to attack a legal organisation.

I'm not against using Violence in Political situations, but I believe the best way to destroy the current BNP threat is to break them down on an interlectual level.

Rosa Provokateur

18th June 2009, 04:28

I wonder, with statements like these, what are the differences between you, and fascists?

Leninists atleast entertain the notion of democracy where-as fascists are more honest and wont b.s. you as to what they believe.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:39

Rosa Provokateur

18th June 2009, 05:01

I far prefer individuals just frankly saying what they are for.

I'm for anarchy. For me that means a mix of mutualist economics, primitivist critique, communal living, and individualist outlook. I dont really fit into any school of thought so I just borrow what I think is good from each one.

Skin_HeadBanger

18th June 2009, 06:52

Listen to the intro to "Bash the Fash" by Oi Polloi. It basically sums up my beliefs on the subject.

The fascists have a political agenda that has to be met politically, but they also have a physical agenda that has to be met physically.

There's a time and place for everything, my friend.

18th June 2009, 08:48

You have to take notice of circumstances when dealing with fascists. In Britain the British National Party has largely abandoned its previous strategy of violence it pursued as the National Front, so the same tactics cannot be blindly pursued in dealing with them. The BNP is going down the electoral route and the left must counter this by organising in local communities and standing candidates in elections to oppose fascism where it rears its ugly head.

Not sure why people on this website have a fixation on British fascist groups, fascism in other countries is generally much more relevant.

Anyways, dealing with any fascist movement should consist of a mix of street confrontation - preferably not electorally, but instead by raising class-consciousness within the roots of communities as much as possible, setting up grassroots campaigns against racism to deal with the threat in places that especially suffer from it (again physically if need-be but also in a coordinated fashion) and yes, sometimes the old fashioned all-out battles are necessary to counter a threat (although protesters who aren't willing to be too violent chucking eggs, shouting them down and the like is always good too).

In short though, the truth is that a strong working-class movement will counter any fascist threat automatically thus we should be concentrating mostly on that as the way forwards (single purpose groups such as antifa/anti-racist action and WOMBLE who are an anti-police brutality group are relevant too though).

MikeSC

18th June 2009, 11:09

Times have changed when it comes to the BNP. They don't go out "Paki-bashing" anymore, there's no need to go out fighting- when there is no direct threat any initiation of violence would be counter-productive, not to mention the dubious morality of it.

But the fascists who still do take to the streets, like the ones who have been terrorising Romanian families recently, that's a different story. Trying to beat political fascists with confrontation doesn't work- with the BNP it may even have helped them. Fascists that still go out setting fire to houses and so on, though, aren't gonna be bothered by political opposition and aren't gonna be full of people who don't know what kind of racists they are (did you read that story a while back, about someone standing as a BNP MEP who didn't have a clue they were racist, what their politics were or who their leader was? She quit as soon as she found out- I imagine people who don't follow these things can easily be taken in by the BNP.)

Jack

18th June 2009, 15:14

The willingness to kill those who have never wronged you hitherto is an action to be relegated to animals, and beasts.

So defense of ones community, family, and comrades is a savage action?

All that the state militarists are doing is killing others before they attack them. Both you, and them have deluded yourselves into thinking such killing is right, and refuse to live in harmony with those who disagree with you.

It's not a benign political ideology, I obviously am not advocating violence against you, conservatives, liberals, or any ideology that's not filled with hate of someone's race or a viciously anti-worker bent. I have great friends who have all sorts of political beliefs, but they don't involve hatred of another race and that is the difference.

I'm not willing to see innocents killed in the streets either, that is what your policies are. Just because individuals are fascists does not mean they do not deserve justice.

They aren't innocents, their entire ideology is built upon violence, and they are a walking representative of those who would commmit genocide if they ever came to power. It is preemptive self defense.

How would you garuntee them justice? In your chaotic system there would only be private "justice".

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 16:24

So defense of ones community, family, and comrades is a savage action?
Defense necessitates that one be attack beforehand.

It's not a benign political ideology, I obviously am not advocating violence against you, conservatives, liberals, or any ideology that's not filled with hate of someone's race or a viciously anti-worker bent. I have great friends who have all sorts of political beliefs, but they don't involve hatred of another race and that is the difference.
You are willing to use violence as a political means, that is all that matters.

They aren't innocents, their entire ideology is built upon violence, and they are a walking representative of those who would commmit genocide if they ever came to power. It is preemptive self defense.

How would you garuntee them justice? In your chaotic system there would only be private "justice".[/QUOTE]

revolution inaction

18th June 2009, 16:51

Defense necessitates that one be attack beforehand.

No, retaliation requires you to be attacked first, defence doesn't.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 16:53

No, retaliation requires you to be attacked first, defence doesn't.
There is no difference between an attack, and defense in your definition.

RedMonty

18th June 2009, 19:23

Jack

18th June 2009, 20:06

Defense necessitates that one be attack beforehand.

So I have to wait to be shot or beaten by them? If someone's pointing a gun at you does that mean it's not okay to disarm them because they haven't shot you yet?

You are willing to use violence as a political means, that is all that matters.

How is revolution supposed to happen? How would you propose to start your "anarchist" society? Would a national liberation struggle, say like the Algerian War of Independence, be considered "fascist" to you because of the use of violence? And oh my goodness, what about France's property rights to Algeria!

Jack

18th June 2009, 20:07

I think that people here are (generally) in agreement that there is some role for violence in the fight against fascism. I just don't understand this mentality of using violence in any circumstance, especially when it is counter-productive to what you are trying to achieve.

I don't see it as counter productive, that's what I'm saying. As I said, people may feel sympathy for the BNP, but it only goes as far as liberals sympathyse with us.

Rosa Provokateur

18th June 2009, 21:07

They aren't innocents, their entire ideology is built upon violence, and they are a walking representative of those who would commmit genocide if they ever came to power. It is preemptive self defense.

Well the same could be said for Leninism, which directly advocates the creation of an armed vanguard and the violent overthrow of the State. If not an overthrow than usually a coup at the least which involves the ending of people's lives. The murder of the Romanov family comes to mind.

As to genocide; Stalin and Mao, both self-proclaimed Leninists, where responsible for the deaths of countless lives.

The current war in Iraq shows that pre-emptive attack in the name of self-defense is not only ultimately un-justifiable but a fallicy.

Bud Struggle

18th June 2009, 22:22

Scum deserve to be beaten, no matter what the reaction. I would say they didn't go far enough, the streets must run red to teach fascists a lesson. No matter the public opinion, they can not be allowed to show themselves.

That would be Fascist scum and Communist scum and Capitalist scum? I guess everyone deserves a good beating from those they disagree with.

revolution inaction

19th June 2009, 01:03

There is no difference between an attack, and defense in your definition.

How do you work that out? I didn't give a definition in the first place. I would say that defence is something done to prevent a thing or person being harmed, an attack (or many) could clearly be used for this purpose.
If for example some one wants to shoot me and tries to load a gun, but i see them doing this and attack them preventing them from loading the gun.

Ele'ill

19th June 2009, 18:11

The era of - planned - petty property destruction is long since over with. Street battles are not an option as nobody shows up and if they do show up they forget essential gear like eye protection and gas masks. Even the idea of 'showing up' is idiotic. Why do you need to 'show up' to throw a rock through a Gap window or to torch a police car?

Maybe this stuff doesn't apply to this thread but it feels good to get it out. Especially with the upcoming g20 meeting in Pittsburgh this Sept. I've heard small turnout I've heard large turn out I'm feeling a small turn out with more arrests and serious charges issued to people who wanted to act violent but within everyone's comfort zones.

We need thinking in the streets. Non violent direct action that will have a huge overall impact on whatever is being targeted - Rather than a symbolic feel good act of breaking a police car window or tipping a dumpster over. Several people could successfully torch an entire police building and all of its cars if it was unplanned-spontaneous action. Nobody wants to do that, thank god, because it doesn't feel right. It would push things to the next level a little too quickly for us all.

Revolutionaries should be cautious when using violent direct action as their enemies are usually more powerful and if these enemies decide to use the same tactics back you won't be getting another chance and we live for the second chance.

Jack

19th June 2009, 19:17

Ele'ill

19th June 2009, 20:59

Odd how you adovate blatant reformism throughout your post, then go on to talk about revolutionaries.

Odd how revolutionaries talk about the revolution taking place in stages then criticize reformists. :rolleyes:

19th June 2009, 22:13

Odd how reformists are scum and we can't be arsed explaining that your definition of what stages entails wrong and that you're shit.

Bud Struggle

19th June 2009, 22:33

Qwerty Dvorak

21st June 2009, 03:01

I think the counter-productive effect of the attacks is being over-estimated. Nobody is going to hop into bed with a racist thug just because the racist thug got hit with an egg. There were a lot of complaints, yes, but nearly all of those complaints started with "Now I don't have any time for the BNP but..."

As some other guy said earlier, sympathy is not the same as support. Sympathy is considerably less useful in politics. There are sympathy votes to be had, sure, but they rarely come to anything significant or long-term.

That said, it definitely does damage the credibility of the attackers. So where you have a far right group physically attacked by a far left group, you might get votes and support moving from the far left group to more mainstream parties, but I don't necessarily think it would result in votes or support moving towards the far right group.

Ele'ill

21st June 2009, 22:41

As some other guy said earlier, sympathy is not the same as support. Sympathy is considerably less useful in politics. There are sympathy votes to be had, sure, but they rarely come to anything significant or long-term.

The issue isn't that people are going to give sympathy votes to the beaten. The issue is that they're not going to vote for far left candidates. Oh right, the far left can't be bought with votes as they want to dismantle the entire system we're under right now. Fine. I'm ok with that and I agree to an extent.

The votes are a metaphor for ideological support and without anyone else supporting your ideology you're fucked. Period. "Enough" people for a revolution means the revolution is already taking place or already taken place and it isn't/hasn't.

The workers make up the majority of the population so on and so forth but they are not anarchists or communists. The left is still a fringe group. Actually the left has become a fringe clique.

If the people on this forum and else where wanted change bad enough they'd either be trying to reform SOMETHING or fighting in the street - Not sitting and waiting for 'everyone else to become aware of what's going on and change things'.

That's called waiting for the situation to fix itself. Cop-out.

Rosa Provokateur

23rd June 2009, 12:39

Odd how reformists are scum and we can't be arsed explaining that your definition of what stages entails wrong and that you're shit.

Always with the "scum". Reformists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, primitivists; anybody you guys dont like get's labeled as "scum" and then you praise whenever they get mugged.

I'd expect that from stormfront, NOT revleft :mad:

AntifaAustralia

23rd June 2009, 16:26

pacifism is great! so is war! look they are both great.

Someone said something about creating sympathy, the acknowledgement of the capacity of empathy from another human.

Some great examples of pacifism include Nelson mandela, Martin luther king, mahatma ghandi...... all used peace, all received a great outcome!

But jack does have a great point about the use of violence, the use of violence as said by jack is an affective tool against vast differences in values and beliefs.

i agree with what radical graffiti said.
Use of violence in a purposeful and meaningful way is acceptable if used by the right people. eg. the war against nazis.

can we agree on the use of violence as a last resort, defence? and defence of others?

Jazzratt

23rd June 2009, 16:38

Always with the "scum". Reformists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, primitivists; anybody you guys dont like get's labeled as "scum" and then you praise whenever they get mugged.

I'd expect that from stormfront, NOT revleft :mad:

We have a damn good reason for thinking of them as scum. Libertarians and ancaps, for example, loathe the working class and support politics which would make capitalism even worse for them. Primmies support politics which would cause billions of people to die, they would make any famine or systematic use of violence look like a drunken punch up. Reformists are scum because no matter how many reforms they make the workers will still be exploited.

I'm quite confused as to what is wrong with thinking of people as scum.

Pogue

23rd June 2009, 16:41

I'd expect that from stormfront, NOT revleft http://www.revleft.com/vb/violent-confrontations-t111206/revleft/smilies/angry.gif

Oh, fuck right off will you?

Ele'ill

23rd June 2009, 21:29

I'm quite confused as to what is wrong with thinking of people as scum.

Hi, Jazzratt.

Perhaps the people you're labeling as scum find merit in a wide spectrum of ideologies - all of which are far left. Nobody knows the specifics of what will successfully replace capitalism. We only have a general idea.

Primmies support politics which would cause billions of people to die, they would make any famine or systematic use of violence look like a drunken punch up.

How?

Reformists are scum because no matter how many reforms they make the workers will still be exploited.

:rolleyes:

If they push reform that further exploits workers or that's completely useless than yes. What if they reform in favor of workers. Radical reform will work just fine. Its more likely to happen than a revolution and its easier to attain. Failed attempts at reform draw attention to flaws in a system and has a greater chance of gaining popular support/resistance than doing nothing at all. (hoping for a global worker's revolt)

Bud Struggle

23rd June 2009, 21:52

We have a damn good reason for thinking of them as scum. Libertarians and ancaps, for example, loathe the working class and support politics which would make capitalism even worse for them. Primmies support politics which would cause billions of people to die, they would make any famine or systematic use of violence look like a drunken punch up. Reformists are scum because no matter how many reforms they make the workers will still be exploited.

I'm quite confused as to what is wrong with thinking of people as scum.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Some people agree with you. Some people don't. No one's opinion is "better" than anyone elses--just as no one's religion is "better" than anyone elses or no one's "color" is better than anyone elses or no one's lifestyle is "better" than anyone elses.

Who the heck are you to "JUDGE" what is right for one person or another--you don't want them to judge you--so why should you judge some one else? If someone want's to be a Communist--fine, or someone wants to be a Capitalist--fine, or someone wants to be a Fascist--fine, or someone wants to act "gay"--fine. Be Bi--fine. Be transgender--fine.

Everyone has a right to their "lifestyle" choices. We have no right to tell anyone they are "wrong." You Communists might as well be the Catholic Church if you are going to spend your days bossing people around as to whom you think they should be.

Qwerty Dvorak

23rd June 2009, 22:37

I'm quite confused as to what is wrong with thinking of people as scum.
Then you have no problem being on the fringe of political debate. That's fine, I doubt the BNP or the ruling class has a problem with that either.

Bud Struggle

23rd June 2009, 23:31

Then you have no problem being on the fringe of political debate. That's fine, I doubt the BNP or the ruling class has a problem with that either.

Well the Communists are on the fringe too. :cool:

Jazzratt

23rd June 2009, 23:38

Perhaps the people you're labeling as scum find merit in a wide spectrum of ideologies - all of which are far left. Nobody knows the specifics of what will successfully replace capitalism. We only have a general idea.

Er, no. Libertarians and ancaps are far right as are fascists. From what I've read of primitivism it rejects left and right wing and goes instead for "insane wing" (or no wing as they might have it).

How?

It's quite simple. In order to support a certain amount of population you require a certain level of technology. For billions you require advanced agricultural techniques (genetic modification, intensive farming and so on) for millions you need fairly advanced agriculture (proper crop rotation, standard harvesting techniques and the like) and for tens of thousands you need basic agriculture (ploughs and fields). A rejection of any of these things will mean that the ability to support a given population isn't there anymore and the population will have to die off until it is sutainable at a chosen level of technology; in the mean time people starve to death.

If they push reform that further exploits workers or that's completely useless than yes. What if they reform in favor of workers. Radical reform will work just fine. Its more likely to happen than a revolution and its easier to attain. Failed attempts at reform draw attention to flaws in a system and has a greater chance of gaining popular support/resistance than doing nothing at all. (hoping for a global worker's revolt)

Reform changes nothing because it is, by definition, changes within the current paradigm the same structure exists. Worker exploitation is at the base of the system, it cannot be removed by reform in the same way you cannot remove bed bugs simply by changing your sheets.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Some people agree with you. Some people don't.

The ability to agree or disagree with an opinion is something I find tuly brilliant. I genuinely relish the fact that people differ in opinions. But...
No one's opinion is "better" than anyone elses--just as no one's religion is "better" than anyone elses or no one's "color" is better than anyone elses or no one's lifestyle is "better" than anyone elses.

Who the heck are you to "JUDGE" what is right for one person or another--you don't want them to judge you--so why should you judge some one else?

This is where you're wrong. Opinions on anything save, say, taste in food or music or whatever are always up for question. My opinions are always in question, your opinions are in question. There is no point in holding an opinion unless you're ready to state that people who hold an opposing opinion are wrong. An opinion is not granted any special status simply by being an opinion.

If someone want's to be a Communist--fine, or someone wants to be a Capitalist--fine, or someone wants to be a Fascist--fine, or someone wants to act "gay"--fine. Be Bi--fine. Be transgender--fine.

This is just fucking childish. Communism and capitalism/fascism cannot coexist, being a fascist or capitalist immediatly means you reject communism and vice versa; that's the point. You cannot be a communist in a capitalist/fascist world without wishing to destroy the current system just as I expect capitalists/fascists would not be able to exist in a communist world unless they wanted to destroy it. You can however have any given sexuality without needing to eradicate any other sexualities - being gay does not necessitate changing the world nor does being any given gender. Being queer or non-queer is not, in fact, a worldview.

Everyone has a right to their "lifestyle" choices.

Yes. But a proposal on how the world is run is not a fucking lifestyle. Lifestyles can exist regardless (unless the way the world is run prevents them. And even then people can continue in secret).

We have no right to tell anyone they are "wrong."

Yes we do. If you tell me that the sun revolves around the earth, you are wrong. If you tell me that the earth is six thousand years old you are wrong. If you tell me that capitalism does not exploit workers you are wrong. If you tell me that blacks are thicker than whites you are wrong.

You Communists might as well be the Catholic Church if you are going to spend your days bossing people around as to whom you think they should be.

Everyone wants people to be a certain way, that's why they have opinions in the first place. Humans have a society and I think it's really fucking arrogant to think that they shouldn't propose different ways of running it just because some fuckwits are going to get their feelings hurt by being "told what to do".

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd June 2009, 23:48

pacifism is great! so is war! look they are both great.

No. One is stupid and counterproductive and the other is just fucking miserable.

Qwerty Dvorak

24th June 2009, 02:13

Well the Communists are on the fringe too. :cool:
That's what I meant. The communists are on the fringe, and this works to the advantage of both the far-right and the ruling class.

AntifaAustralia

24th June 2009, 09:12

No. One is stupid and counterproductive and the other is just fucking miserable.

What the? are you agreeing with me? or are you disagreeing with me?

you just mocked both of 'em! wot de hek?

RGacky3

24th June 2009, 11:36

Who the heck are you to "JUDGE" what is right for one person or another--you don't want them to judge you--so why should you judge some one else? If someone want's to be a Communist--fine, or someone wants to be a Capitalist--fine, or someone wants to be a Fascist--fine, or someone wants to act "gay"--fine. Be Bi--fine. Be transgender--fine.

Yeah sure, but someone who wants to control other people should'nt be allowed to actually do that, they can want it, they can be that ideology, but doing it is a different thing.

You can be a fascist if you want, and yell on the top of your lungs. But fascists as Jazzrat said, arn't just living a lifestyle, they want to control society and change it. Big difference between that and "acting gay".

We have no right to tell anyone they are "wrong."

We have a right to say their assumptions are incorrect, or their conclusions don't make sense. For example I can't say that someone who says freedom is'nt important is wrong, but Ican say that someone who says capitalism is freedom is wrong. (One is a matter of personal morals the other is an assertion).

Then again attacking someone because they are "scum" is rediculous and essencially makes leftists look as boneheaded and anger driven as the racist thugs.

Ele'ill

24th June 2009, 22:24

Er, no. Libertarians and ancaps are far right as are fascists. From what I've read of primitivism it rejects left and right wing and goes instead for "insane wing" (or no wing as they might have it).

There are right and left libertarians. And I wouldn't call ancaps to be far right. What's wrong with rejecting both wings?

It's quite simple. In order to support a certain amount of population you require a certain level of technology. For billions you require advanced agricultural techniques (genetic modification, intensive farming and so on) for millions you need fairly advanced agriculture (proper crop rotation, standard harvesting techniques and the like) and for tens of thousands you need basic agriculture (ploughs and fields). A rejection of any of these things will mean that the ability to support a given population isn't there anymore and the population will have to die off until it is sutainable at a chosen level of technology; in the mean time people starve to death.

Most of the primitivists that I've talked to reject certain technologies(there's a lot of them) or view the primary purpose of some technologies to be entirely useless and extremely harmful. Again, there is a spectrum of beliefs amongst primitivists and anarcho-primitivists. Not everyone wants to abolish all technology over night or even within a decade. Most of the peope just want to return to a simpler way of life, and find the primitivist ideology to be fascinating.

Reform changes nothing because it is, by definition, changes within the current paradigm the same structure exists.

You are a smart person. I am 100% positive that you can think of several ways right off the top of your head as to how reform could erase worker exploitation.

Worker exploitation is at the base of the system, it cannot be removed by reform in the same way you cannot remove bed bugs simply by changing your sheets.

The first step is identifying that there actually are bed bugs present. More than half our population lives in a twilight zone. They don't know that there are bed begs. Change the sheets with enough frequency and you'll see others take note of what you're doing. They'll ask you about it. Dialogue is opened up...

i.e. You have to start the fucking fight before you can be in it.

Yeah sure, but someone who wants to control other people should'nt be allowed to actually do that...

But fascists as Jazzrat said, arn't just living a lifestyle, they want to control society and change it.

By default, anyone with a political ideology wants to control other people - And by default, everyone thinks they have something positive to contribute.

RGacky3

25th June 2009, 08:06

By default, anyone with a political ideology wants to control other people - And by default, everyone thinks they have something positive to contribute.

Is Anarchism a political ideology? If so then your wrong.

If it is'nt (which I don't actually think it is). Then you are right in a sense, however many ideologies only want to control people in the sense that they want to restrict what they do to other people. There is a difference, for example of having a law saying you can't shoot people and having a law of no jews in the country.

That being said all in all your right.

There are right and left libertarians. And I wouldn't call ancaps to be far right. What's wrong with rejecting both wings?

The libertarians and fascists are examples of why the left/right distinction is rediculous and makes no sense.

You are a smart person. I am 100% positive that you can think of several ways right off the top of your head as to how reform could erase worker exploitation.

Without changing the power structure its impossible.

Rosa Provokateur

25th June 2009, 19:55

Then again attacking someone because they are "scum" is rediculous and essencially makes leftists look as boneheaded and anger driven as the racist thugs.

THANKYOU! Finally someone here admits it :w00t:

Pogue

25th June 2009, 20:16

THANKYOU! Finally someone here admits it :w00t:

What a load of tripe. Would you say to the people who took on the violent NF at Lewisham, or even wya back in Cable Street, or maybe today in Moscow, that they shouldn't attack the walking scum of the earth, because it makes them 'boneheaded'?

We don't oppose fascists just because they are violent, we oppose them for their destructive, anti-working class ideology, and we recognise that fascism is violent and need to be met in kind. Its simply a good and neccesary tactic.

25th June 2009, 20:44

Violence is a legitimate tactic to use against fascism and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Rosa Provokateur

25th June 2009, 21:10

IcarusAngel

26th June 2009, 00:33

lol. If it wasn't for Red Skinheads and anti-racist punks the punk movement would have easily been taken over by racists and fascists. Punks and skins were able to reclaim punk from the racists. Punks created their own culture and they get to determine who stays in it and who leaves.

Punk, skins, etc., really have nothing to do with the "anarchist movement" and both groups or "subcultures" have had a wide variety of ideologies to them. Some punk bands advocate anarchy, just like some metal bands do.

Anarchy is really academic, and was seen by many as a way to transcend the imperialistic nation-state, to build up a society based on constructive rather than destructive impusles.

The only thing punk has in common with academia is that they both advocate a variety of leftist theories.

Ele'ill

27th June 2009, 00:42

What a load of tripe. Would you say to the people who took on the violent NF at Lewisham, or even wya back in Cable Street, or maybe today in Moscow, that they shouldn't attack the walking scum of the earth, because it makes them 'boneheaded'?

Its too much energy exerted into something that will go back and forth forever. Its a feel good tactic and beyond that - its useless.

Also, the 'walking scum of the earth' happen to be humans that were once what we'd consider to be normal.

There are far more violent racists and xenophobes in third world ghettos than there are Moscow skinheads. Being a leftist does'nt make you a friend of all the earth and doesn't make politics the center of every social situation/confrontation.

We don't oppose fascists just because they are violent, we oppose them for their destructive, anti-working class ideology,

Oppose them for whatever reason you want. But...

and we recognise that fascism is violent and need to be met in kind. Its simply a good and neccesary tactic.

Throwing 'we' around like that will separate you from friends very quickly and the last thing the left needs at this point is less friends.

StalinFanboy

27th June 2009, 23:08

You ever been on the receiving end? Red skinheads are just as bad as white-power ones and maybe even worse because I've seen them be homophobic and then hide behind the label of SHARP or RASH.

I dont do violence because it's coercive, goes against my ethics, and I think it's harmful to the anarchist cause. Nobody will support a bunch of thugs and street-fighters. Whether or not you care, there's no way you can represent the people if what you do alienates them.
Pacifists are scum for placing their moral purity above the struggle for liberation. Anti-fascism and revolution alike are not about saving face with our enemies.

Meeting fascists with violence is not about gaining support for any Left ideology. It's about grinding fascists into the ground and letting them know that we won't fucking have them in our communities.

And yes, I have been on the receiving end of fascist violence, which is exactly why I want to see fascists bleed. Violence as a tool works. The bourgeois have been in power for fucking ever because they are totally fine with using violence, and because hippies like you are completely unwilling to fight back.

Pacifism is insanity.

Ele'ill

28th June 2009, 00:27

Is Anarchism a political ideology? If so then your wrong.

No, anarchism is not just a political ideology although I was referring to the political aspects of it which is how/why it applies to this discussion.

Even sociologically it aims to control people.

If it is'nt (which I don't actually think it is). Then you are right in a sense, however many ideologies only want to control people in the sense that they want to restrict what they do to other people. There is a difference, for example of having a law saying you can't shoot people and having a law of no jews in the country.

Control is only one thing. It does not matter who it applies to. It does not matter if those in power *think* what's being controlled or enforced is a positive thing.

Without changing the power structure its impossible.

Reform America's position on unions at a retail level and you could in theory have immediate national worker solidarity. From retail to distribution to manufacturing. This is a tiny example and..

Nothing is that easy of course.

It basically comes down to how badly the true majority wants it.

RGacky3

29th June 2009, 08:15

Even sociologically it aims to control people.

How so? (in concrete applicable terms)

It does not matter if those in power *think* what's being controlled or enforced is a positive thing.

Yeah, and I'm saying all power is wrong, surely thats not "controling" people.

It's about grinding fascists into the ground and letting them know that we won't fucking have them in our communities.

Ahh, so really its a practical thing right? Well in that case its also a wonderful reason for cops to beat leftists to the ground, crack down on them, and a great reason for the "community" to go against the leftists considering them as scummy as the fascists.

Congratulations, one step forward to revolution.

And yes, I have been on the receiving end of fascist violence, which is exactly why I want to see fascists bleed.

Just because you are rightously indignant (justifiably) does'nt mean its the best way to go.

The bourgeois have been in power for fucking ever because they are totally fine with using violence, and because hippies like you are completely unwilling to fight back.

Pacifism is insanity.

I agree, I'm against pacifism too. but theres a difference, between self defence and pointless violence.

Ele'ill

29th June 2009, 15:30

How so? (in concrete applicable terms)

You have an ideology that goes beyond politics and economics into the realm of what's socially acceptable and what is not. Homophobia - Racism - Animal testing - Hunting - Labor hierarchy - etc... Several of those things even branch back off into politics and economics and elsewhere.

Yeah, and I'm saying all power is wrong, surely thats not "controling" people.

You'd be controlling the people that don't think power is wrong.

The abolishment of the current system would be forced by nature.

I agree, I'm against pacifism too. but theres a difference, between self defence and pointless violence.

The problem with the left is that they're buying into the violence game.

The police attack demonstrators so the demonstrators smash the windows on several cop cars. Guess what? If the cops didn't want their property destroyed they wouldn't have parked the unprotected vehicles where they were.

Bait.

There are so many more creative, peaceful and more powerful ways to strike back.

StalinFanboy

29th June 2009, 19:00

How so? (in concrete applicable terms)]

Yeah, and I'm saying all power is wrong, surely thats not "controling" people.

Ahh, so really its a practical thing right? Well in that case its also a wonderful reason for cops to beat leftists to the ground, crack down on them, and a great reason for the "community" to go against the leftists considering them as scummy as the fascists.Um, I think that is the exact reason why pigs meet Leftists with violence. What is your point?

Congratulations, one step forward to revolution.

Just because you are rightously indignant (justifiably) does'nt mean its the best way to go.

I agree, I'm against pacifism too. but theres a difference, between self defence and pointless violence.Fighting fascism is self defense. Plain and simple. They have proven through out the years that they are more than willing to meet non-whites, and race traitors, with violence. I would love to be able to talk to them reasonably and show them their analysis of the world is wrong, but they (especially the white supremacist sorts) are extremely irrational. To think we can just talk it over and perhaps sing some nice songs together is naive.

If you think it's morally wrong to meet fascists with violence whenever possible and practical, then you're just plain ridiculous.

fiddlesticks

29th June 2009, 21:55

RGacky3

30th June 2009, 10:09

The problem with the left is that they're buying into the violence game.

The police attack demonstrators so the demonstrators smash the windows on several cop cars. Guess what? If the cops didn't want their property destroyed they wouldn't have parked the unprotected vehicles where they were.

Bait.

There are so many more creative, peaceful and more powerful ways to strike back.

I agree.

You'd be controlling the people that don't think power is wrong.

The abolishment of the current system would be forced by nature.

If you want to define it that way (destroying power IS power), which is a little bit of an oxymoron, then sure.

People who don't think power is wrong can think that, they just cannot force other people to do things they don't want to do.

I'm forcing people to not force people to do things :p.

You have an ideology that goes beyond politics and economics into the realm of what's socially acceptable and what is not. Homophobia - Racism - Animal testing - Hunting - Labor hierarchy - etc... Several of those things even branch back off into politics and economics and elsewhere.

I have nothing against anything that does'nt exploit or oppress people. I only care about racism when it results in oppression of races (I could care less what micheal richards things or whatever), the same with other things.

I don't relaly care about Animal testing or hunting btw.

Um, I think that is the exact reason why pigs meet Leftists with violence. What is your point?

What? Which reason are you refering to?

Fighting fascism is self defense. Plain and simple. They have proven through out the years that they are more than willing to meet non-whites, and race traitors, with violence.

Thats the same argument as "well Saddam is the type of guy that would have nuclear weapons so invading iraq is really self defence."

To think we can just talk it over and perhaps sing some nice songs together is naive.

No, you isolate them and make them insignificant, and reduce their influence.

Ele'ill

30th June 2009, 19:11

If you want to define it that way (destroying power IS power), which is a little bit of an oxymoron, then sure.

When you destroyed the power, over threw the government etc.. What would exist afterwards would be an ideology on how things should be run. This is, by its nature, forced.

People who don't think power is wrong can think that, they just cannot force other people to do things they don't want to do.

The ideology that replaced government and power would be restricting people the right to organize in groups and create another government for themselves.

I don't relaly care about Animal testing or hunting btw.

So you're a fan of my other posts I see. :)

StalinFanboy

30th June 2009, 19:58

What? Which reason are you refering to? That cops don't want Leftists in their communities. They think we are scum.

I don't see how this invalidates the fact that I see fascists (and pigs) as scum, and so do many other people.

Thats the same argument as "well Saddam is the type of guy that would have nuclear weapons so invading iraq is really self defence."

But it's not the same issue, so I don't care if the arguments for are similar. Fascists are always a threat to the working class, and to revolution. Crushing them when they organize, and not allowing them to get their message out is always an act that is working in favor of building working class power.
The invasion of Iraq was bourgeois in nature. And any weapons Saddam had, he got from America.

No, you isolate them and make them insignificant, and reduce their influence.
And how do expect to isolate a movement that is extremely vocal? You can't honestly think that isolating them, physically and ideologically, is going to be easy and nice.

If someone is unwilling to stain their moral purity in the name of struggle, then that's their problem. But they should not condemn those who are willing.

RGacky3

1st July 2009, 10:19

That cops don't want Leftists in their communities. They think we are scum.

I don't know where you get this. Cops are not different from other non class concsious workers who just have a job to do.

I don't see how this invalidates the fact that I see fascists (and pigs) as scum, and so do many other people.

Just because cops do it does'nt make it ok for leftists. I would think we'd be beyond that thinking.

But it's not the same issue, so I don't care if the arguments for are similar. Fascists are always a threat to the working class, and to revolution.

Only when the working class listens to them.

But it's not the same issue, so I don't care if the arguments for are similar.

you should care if the arugments are similar if you want to be consistant.

And how do expect to isolate a movement that is extremely vocal? You can't honestly think that isolating them, physically and ideologically, is going to be easy and nice.

If someone is unwilling to stain their moral purity in the name of struggle, then that's their problem. But they should not condemn those who are willing.

No one gives a rats ass about dumb fascists yelling stuff, the most it is, is annoying, beating them up in a way validates them ("why are the attacking us, maybe they're afraid of our message"). Its not about being unwilling to do what needs to be done, its about being unwilling to do something pointless.

And I do condemn those who go against their own principles.

When you destroyed the power, over threw the government etc.. What would exist afterwards would be an ideology on how things should be run. This is, by its nature, forced.

Thats strange meaningless wordplay, but whatever. I'm forcing people not to force people, now your just being silly.

The ideology that replaced government and power would be restricting people the right to organize in groups and create another government for themselves.

it would'nt restrict people to make govrnments for themselves, it would restrict them to make governmetns for other people who don't consent to it.

So you're a fan of my other posts I see. http://www.revleft.com/vb/violent-confrontations-t111206/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

I hav'nt really been reading the hunting stuff.

StalinFanboy

1st July 2009, 19:58

I don't know where you get this. Cops are not different from other non class concsious workers who just have a job to do.
what? Yes they are. They are the militant arm of the bourgeoisie. There are always a few guys who want to be cops because they think they are going to be helping their communities, but most cops want power, and they know what they're getting into by becoming cops.

Just because cops do it does'nt make it ok for leftists. I would think we'd be beyond that thinking. What?

You originally said this to me:

"Ahh, so really its a practical thing right? Well in that case its also a wonderful reason for cops to beat leftists to the ground, crack down on them, and a great reason for the "community" to go against the leftists considering them as scummy as the fascists."

I replied by saying that the reason cops meet Leftists with violence on occasion is the same reason that Leftists meet fascists with violence. It is against our interests to allow fascists in our communities. I never once said that because cops meet us with violence, it's ok to meet fascists with violence. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.

Only when the working class listens to them. And you would rather wait until the working class DOES listen to them before acting? lol k

you should care if the arugments are similar if you want to be consistant. You're going to have to explain how I'm being inconsistent. Otherwise, you're just not making sense.

No one gives a rats ass about dumb fascists yelling stuff, the most it is, is annoying, beating them up in a way validates them ("why are the attacking us, maybe they're afraid of our message"). Its not about being unwilling to do what needs to be done, its about being unwilling to do something pointless. Wow, totally wrong. There are a LOT of working class people where I live that at the very least sympathize with White fascists. And there are a lot of people everywhere that do too, and not just White fascists. People obviously do give a rats ass about fascism, or else we wouldn't be having this debate.

And I do condemn those who go against their own principles.
Cool story, except violence doesn't go against my principles. I am not concerned with moral purity, or saving face with class enemies.

Ele'ill

1st July 2009, 20:44

Thats strange meaningless wordplay, but whatever. I'm forcing people not to force people,

:lol:

If you have a population without a government, some are anarchists some are not. The ones that are not anarchists start to build their own government- for whatever reason, it does not matter why-

And the anarchists stop them from building their government.

That is control.

When you make something cease to exist and then keep it from ever existing again- that is control. Forced.

now your just being silly.

You seem to like my word play enough to copy it.

it would'nt restrict people to make govrnments for themselves, it would restrict them to make governmetns for other people who don't consent to it.

So then you are a separatist- and don't mind governments that control people who don't mind being controlled (or don't know that they're being controlled or supporting an entity that controls). You would be happy on a plot of land somewhere in a community of like minded people - without a government.

Why not start a global anarchist movement for a plot of land somewhere. A country. Maybe somewhere in Africa. Relocate and have everything you ever wanted.

I hav'nt really been reading the hunting stuff.

:rolleyes:

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 09:19

If you have a population without a government, some are anarchists some are not. The ones that are not anarchists start to build their own government- for whatever reason, it does not matter why-

And the anarchists stop them from building their government.

That is control.

When you make something cease to exist and then keep it from ever existing again- that is control. Forced.

No you can build your own government if you want, you just can't force other people to obey it, that don't want to, plain and simple. Thats not control you doofis.

If it is, then freeing slaves is oppressive to slave owners. You see how rediculous your reasoning is?

So then you are a separatist- and don't mind governments that control people who don't mind being controlled (or don't know that they're being controlled or supporting an entity that controls). You would be happy on a plot of land somewhere in a community of like minded people - without a government.

Why not start a global anarchist movement for a plot of land somewhere. A country. Maybe somewhere in Africa. Relocate and have everything you ever wanted.

If people dont' mind being controlled thats not government, thats voluntary obedience, akin to giong to church and listening to your priest.

My goal is to liberate people from the state and from Capitalism. Relocating to a plot of land does'nt do that.

They are the militant arm of the bourgeoisie. There are always a few guys who want to be cops because they think they are going to be helping their communities, but most cops want power, and they know what they're getting into by becoming cops.

I hav'n talked to enough cops to know this either way, but I find it hard to believe that there are more cops who get into it for power than ones that get into it because they feel like they will help the community.

But then again, my opinion is as good as yours, and based on the idea that people are not naturally douche bags on purpose.

"Ahh, so really its a practical thing right? Well in that case its also a wonderful reason for cops to beat leftists to the ground, crack down on them, and a great reason for the "community" to go against the leftists considering them as scummy as the fascists."

I replied by saying that the reason cops meet Leftists with violence on occasion is the same reason that Leftists meet fascists with violence. It is against our interests to allow fascists in our communities. I never once said that because cops meet us with violence, it's ok to meet fascists with violence. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.

If you say its against your interests to allow fascists in ocmmunities and thats why leftists meet fascists with violence, I assume you mean its justified.

Thats where I got it from.

Either way its both practically wrong and principally wrong.

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 10:55

deleted

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 10:59

Leo Tolstoy covered violence as a whole in his book, "the Kingdom of God is Within You". Violence is a tool of the State; it relies on coercion, force, etc. to retain power and once it has us in a violent situation it knows how to handle things.

Indeed; violence only begets violence. But that is exactly what Communism is in practice. When mechanisms of the free market and prices are done away w/, you only have force and the threat of violence to run an economy, as happened under Stalin. As happened under any socialist economy. This is why communists perpetrate violence against anarchists. The dictatorship of the proletarian always turns into the dictatorship of the Dictator, no different than fascism.

Have you read "The Coming Insurrection"? It is a call to violence.

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 11:34

When mechanisms of the free market and prices are done away w/, you only have force and the threat of violence to run an economy

Private property is BASED on violence.

The free market is based on private property.

Outside of that violence nad force don't run the economy, there are many other options :P, just because you say its true does'nt mean it is.

2nd July 2009, 11:45

Shut up now. Violent confrontations aren't ideal or the nicest thing but they are sometimes necessary, denying that is just beyond stupid.

If a revolution does come about do you think it's just gonna be peaceable? :wub:

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 12:09

Private property is BASED on violence.

How?

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 12:44

Private property outside of your personal possessinos requires a third party (a state) to back it up by threat of violence.

Bud Struggle

2nd July 2009, 13:01

Private property outside of your personal possessinos requires a third party (a state) to back it up by threat of violence.

You could say the same about a woman's sexual rights too. (Some) men could easily go around raping women with abandon if they weren't threatened by force not to.

Same goes for murder and lots of other non fiancially related crimes.

There's a reason for police beyond protecting property.

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 13:04

Private property outside of your personal possessinos requires a third party (a state) to back it up by threat of violence.
What does "back it up" mean in this context? It means I will try to prevent theft of my property. I don't need a state to do that. Neither does this mean private property is based on violence.

You conflate free markets and violence, which demonstrates you know nothing re how an economy works. You're saying that all economic activity is violence and there's no difference bt going to the swap meet and putting a gun to my head. It's a stupid argument.

RGacky3

2nd July 2009, 13:49

You could say the same about a woman's sexual rights too. (Some) men could easily go around raping women with abandon if they weren't threatened by force not to.

Same goes for murder and lots of other non fiancially related crimes.

There's a reason for police beyond protecting property.

Rape and murder is an attack on people.

Property laws being protected by the state is enforcing priviledge through violence.

It means I will try to prevent theft of my property. I don't need a state to do that. Neither does this mean private property is based on violence.

For property in the Capitalist sense yes you do.

You're saying that all economic activity is violence and there's no difference bt going to the swap meet and putting a gun to my head. It's a stupid argument.

The relationship between a king and the peasents was based on violence, however one could go through your entire life without facing it.

A swap meet is not the way Capitalism works.

Before all property there is land property, which is sqarely based on nothing more than the threat of violence.

MikeSC

2nd July 2009, 14:02

What does "back it up" mean in this context? It means I will try to prevent theft of my property. I don't need a state to do that. Neither does this mean private property is based on violence.

You conflate free markets and violence, which demonstrates you know nothing re how an economy works. You're saying that all economic activity is violence and there's no difference bt going to the swap meet and putting a gun to my head. It's a stupid argument.

For Christ's sake, this comes up every day- you've started this discussion before and then declined to respond, and here you are yet again posting the same nonsense in yet another thread. Private property is only private property because of aggression- because of seizure by the state. This seizure is protected by the state. This is something that we know for certain. We know that the classical theory of how private property came into being is wrong. We know that the earliest societies held their resources in common, without private property. We know that the current distribution of wealth is a result of state seizure. This is not up for discussion, this is a matter of fact. The very concept of private property is statist, this has been explained countless times.

EDIT: The "for Christ's sake" bit was a bit strong, I apologise- but this exact topic was last discussed, as far as I know I haven't read through all of the threads, a couple of days ago in the "Anarcho-Capitalism" thread.

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 15:57

Private property is only private property because of aggression- because of seizure by the state. This seizure is protected by the state. This is something that we know for certain. We know that the classical theory of how private property came into being is wrong. We know that the earliest societies held their resources in common, without private property. We know that the current distribution of wealth is a result of state seizure.

What we know is that profits were introduced through the enclosure movement introduced in the 17th and 18th century which produced the Agricultural Revolution which produced excess crops which allowed people to be sustained in cities. It was the introduction of private property rights and the spread of them that produced the incentive for industrialization which improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

The very concept of private property is statist, this has been explained countless times.
I deny it. Property rights are derived from the human right to life, not the state. The right to dispose of possessions is a condition of human life, not a right bestowed by a sovereign.

MikeSC

2nd July 2009, 17:09

What we know is that profits were introduced through the enclosure movement introduced in the 17th and 18th century which produced the Agricultural Revolution which produced excess crops which allowed people to be sustained in cities. It was the introduction of private property rights and the spread of them that produced the incentive for industrialization which improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

What we know is that during that time peasants and tribesmen who lived on communal land were forcefully dispossessed and pushed into cities- landless workers initiating the industrial revolution. Whether it improved people's lives compared to feudalism is not my concern, why should it be?

What we know is that peasants were forced off of the land because the state claimed, using Divine Right, that they were god's representatives on Earth and so could do with nature as they pleased- and entrust it to individuals if they so wanted. Every system of private property relies on a sovereign that is assumed to have a legitimate claim to that slice of nature- the only possible source of legitimacy is if a god granted it, maybe not even then. It also relies on the state being able to enforce their god-given claim with force.

I deny it. Property rights are derived from the human right to life, not the state. The right to dispose of possessions is a condition of human life, not a right bestowed by a sovereign.They are not derived from the human right to life at all, that's just silly. Life is of course possible without property. Tell me exactly which law you're going by, tell me the justification for that law, and I will tell why it is wrong. There is no use in going the Ayn Rand route and stating that something is a natural right without justifying it.

Pogue

2nd July 2009, 17:15

Using logical debate will always be better than violence, especially when trying to change someones mind about something.

Logical thought is what makes people want to fight for something, because it makes sense to them, people will die for something they really believe in but throwing rocks at a building is just going to get a lot of people to loose respect for your cause.
In most cases, I generally associate violence with stupidity.

Dear Mr Franco, please don't send your troops to kill me and all my friends and rape my wife, as you will find that your ideology is logically incohent for the following reasons...

Or

Everyone in the union to the town hall, the fascist troops are coming to take over Spain and we have guns to defend ourselves.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused:

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 17:30

Life is of course possible without property.
No, this is just silly.

MikeSC

2nd July 2009, 17:42

No, this is just silly.

This was answered just a couple of days ago- in a thread that you were posting in.

EDIT: Not only were you posting in the thread, it was you who asked the question...

I'm sick to death of having this discussion, frankly- please answer the question from my last post. Or better yet, read through one of the other discussions that has already taken place. Read through the discussion in the Anarcho-Capitalism thread, and then take it from there, because this is stuff that you have already been told. If I continue down this route in this thread, you'll stop posting, and then you'll say the same thing in a couple of days, and so on into infinite.

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 18:30

Every system of private property relies on a sovereign that is assumed to have a legitimate claim to that slice of nature [...]

I honestly don't agree w/ you. I'm sorry you feel that your right to life is sanctioned to you by the state.

I'm sick to death of having this discussion, frankly- please answer the question from my last post. Or better yet, read through one of the other discussions that has already taken place. Read through the discussion in the Anarcho-Capitalism thread, and then take it from there, because this is stuff that you have already been told. You confuse ideology w/ history, AFAIK. History tells us nothing re what ought to be, only what happened.

You mean this question?

Whether it [the industrial revolution] improved people's lives compared to feudalism is not my concern, why should it be?

MikeSC

2nd July 2009, 18:37

I honestly don't agree w/ you. I'm sorry you feel that your right to life is sanctioned to you by the state.

Oh come on. Do you read the replies people give you, ever? Why is private property necessary for survival? Considering that for the majority of mankind's history there has been no such thing? And considering that this, and every other point you've brought up, was answered a couple of days ago in the Anarcho-Capitalism thread near the bottom of this page?

And we also know for certain that it is the State that has instituted the system of private property we have now. In the US, the early settlers held the land communally until the monarchies decided the land was their god-given resource to sieze and distribute or sell. We know that all of the very earliest societies held resources in common, until violence and religion created property of both natural materials and people. This is historical fact.

Private property needs a sovereign, because it needs to be distributed in the first place by a force with percieved legitimacy, stemming from forceful capabilites or religion or both. It is a state institution, there's nothing divine or mystical or decreed in holy scripture about private property.

You confuse ideology w/ history, AFAIK.No I don't. If anything you're guilty of this, by generalising your own wrong views about private property to the past, when we know for certain that private property is a relatively recent institution.

You mean this question?I meant this-

"Tell me exactly which law you're going by, tell me the justification for that law, and I will tell why it is wrong. There is no use in going the Ayn Rand route and stating that something is a natural right without justifying it. "

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 18:52

Oh come on. Do you read the replies people give you, ever? Why is private property necessary for survival?

Try living w/out anyone's property for a month, I dare you.

I meant this-

"Tell me exactly which law you're going by, tell me the justification for that law, and I will tell why it is wrong."[...] This isn't a question. The justification for property is the requirements of man's existence. But I already stated this. Do you ever read the replies people give you?

MikeSC

2nd July 2009, 19:03

Try living w/out anyone's property for a month, I dare you.

In a capitalist system, that would be very hard if not impossible. If only there was some other system to work towards, without private property! Where natural resources are used democratically rather than despotically- now wouldn't that be something?

This isn't a question. The justification for property is the requirements of man's existence. But I already stated this. Do you ever read the replies people give you?

Come on, you have to be saying things this stupid on purpose. The justification of property is the requirements of man's existence? What are you talking about? This is nonsense! If you're trying to say that human existence is impossible without private property, you're demonstrably wrong, as most of mankind's existence has been without private property. This is not up for discussion, this is hard fact.

trivas7

2nd July 2009, 20:08

In a capitalist system, that would be very hard if not impossible.

No, in any system this would be impossible. That's why property is a requirement of man's existence.

Come on, you have to be saying things this stupid on purpose. The justification of property is the requirements of man's existence? What are you talking about?
What part of English don't you understand?

If you're trying to say that human existence is impossible without private property, you're demonstrably wrong, as most of mankind's existence has been without private property. This is not up for discussion, this is hard fact.Again, your confusing history w/ ideology. Property rights aren't "hard fact".

MikeSC

2nd July 2009, 20:17

No, in any system this would be impossible. That's why property is a requirement of man's existence.

For the last time, that is nonsense. Most of humanity's existence has been without private property. It is plainly not impossible, it has happened- and socialism and anarchism are about organising society so that this state institution can be dismantled.

How can you insist that property is a requirement of man's existence when we know that it's a relatively recent institution?

What part of English don't you understand?You're saying this to me? We know that private property is not a requirement of existence. We know this for certain.

Again, your confusing history w/ ideology. Property rights aren't "hard fact".I know that property rights aren't hard fact... What is hard fact is that property isn't necessary for humanity's existence... We have the theoretical basis of modern society without private property in anarchism and socialism, and we have historical knowledge that property hasn't always existed. Private property is a form of economic organisation instituted by the state. There is nothing eternal or divine about it. It's as much of a state institution as the dole is.

StalinFanboy

2nd July 2009, 20:38

Either way its both practically wrong and principally wrong.
No.

Ele'ill

2nd July 2009, 22:04

No you can build your own government if you want, you just can't force other people to obey it, that don't want to, plain and simple. Thats not control you doofis.

You can force them off land and away from resources. Given an ultimatum of relocation or 'join us' most people would rather stay where they are and be a part of a forming community or government etc.

What's stopping people post revolution from forming their own government immediately afterward? The sheep will be shaky and want what they're used to. They'll be susceptible to influence.

For anarchists to not aggressively engage these people who are organizing the same system that was just demolished- would be 'political' suicide.

(I think you and I are thinking about different things on this issue- its just taken until now to stream it out)

If people dont' mind being controlled thats not government, thats voluntary obedience, akin to giong to church and listening to your priest.

If they've been duped into thinking their government is democratic and wonderfully peaceful and the rest of the world are barbarians that ate death's horse than yes it is control because its intentional. Its criminal misinformation and its main purpose is to prevent dissent. The populations of the richest nations eat up the hype.

My goal is to liberate people from the state and from Capitalism. Relocating to a plot of land does'nt do that.

But most people are content with the parts of capitalism that make them happy. Its far too much work to change things that don't affect them- especially for someone else.

RGacky3

3rd July 2009, 09:21

No.

Well I'll be damned you got me.

Come on, you have to be saying things this stupid on purpose. The justification of property is the requirements of man's existence? What are you talking about? This is nonsense! If you're trying to say that human existence is impossible without private property, you're demonstrably wrong, as most of mankind's existence has been without private property. This is not up for discussion, this is hard fact.

Unfortunately this is the absolute truth, Trivas7 is a coward and when challenged beyond his ability will just stop posting and bring it up again later hoping it will work this time. A troll (If I'm using the term correctly).

You can force them off land and away from resources. Given an ultimatum of relocation or 'join us' most people would rather stay where they are and be a part of a forming community or government etc.

It would'nt be relocate or join us, it would be you can do whatever you want as long as you don't stop us from doing whatever we want to (when it comes to land and resources).

What's stopping people post revolution from forming their own government immediately afterward? The sheep will be shaky and want what they're used to. They'll be susceptible to influence.

Its never happened in the past.

also what do you mean by governments? You mean agroup of people who voluntarily follow some rules?

For anarchists to not aggressively engage these people who are organizing the same system that was just demolished- would be 'political' suicide.

(I think you and I are thinking about different things on this issue- its just taken until now to stream it out)

We would'nt aggressively engage people who agree to follow rules, however someone whos enforcing rules on other people who don't voluntarily agree is a different thing.

Like I said, we are stopping people from forcing other people against their will.

If they've been duped into thinking their government is democratic and wonderfully peaceful and the rest of the world are barbarians that ate death's horse than yes it is control because its intentional. Its criminal misinformation and its main purpose is to prevent dissent. The populations of the richest nations eat up the hype.

Keep in mind here what came first, the institutions came first, then the duping, its much easier to convince people of the status quo when there is no other option available, however its hard to convince people to just accept less freedom voluntarily.

This is wyh there are no longer any people really who are pro monarchies.

But most people are content with the parts of capitalism that make them happy. Its far too much work to change things that don't affect them- especially for someone else.

Very few people are content with much in Capitalism. The things that affect them are their workplaces, their landlords, groceries and the such. It starts in the workplace.

trivas7

3rd July 2009, 14:48

If you're trying to say that human existence is impossible without private property, you're demonstrably wrong, as most of mankind's existence has been without private property. This is not up for discussion, this is hard fact.

Unfortunately this is the absolute truth.
Just b/c pre-industrial people didn't have the concepts of privacy and property doesn't mean that they didn't keep personal possessions that were both private and owned as we would understand the terms. You just drink the juice the lefties hand you and call it "absolute truth".

MikeSC

3rd July 2009, 15:10

Just b/c pre-industrial people didn't have the concepts of privacy and property doesn't mean that they didn't keep personal possessions that were both private and owned as we would understand the terms. You just drink the juice the lefties hand you and call it "absolute truth".

Possession is not property, which again has been explained to you in another thread. You have to be doing this on purpose.

trivas7

3rd July 2009, 15:16

Possession is not property, which again has been explained to you in another thread. You have to be doing this on purpose.
From dictionary.com:

prop⋅er⋅ty

http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P08/P0834800) /ˈprɒphttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngərhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngti/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [prop-er-tee] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA Use property in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+property+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

–noun, plural -ties. 1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
Which dictionary do you use?

MikeSC

3rd July 2009, 15:28

From dictionary.com:

Which dictionary do you use?

For ****'s sake trivias, how can you be so ignorant and yet have so many posts? Have you read nothing on this forum? We're quite obviously using property in the same way as political economists and philosophers, as a specific form of possession based around having some kind of sole mystical right to a material object.

Dictionary.com, for Christ's sake.

EDIT: All of this has been explained to you multiple times- I'm not going to waste too much time answered and re-answering your deliberate misunderstandings.

trivas7

3rd July 2009, 15:34

For fuck's sake trivias, how can you be so ignorant and yet have so many posts? Have you read nothing on this forum? We're quite obviously using property in the same way as political economists and philosophers, as a specific form of possession based around having some kind of sole mystical right to a material object.

Dictionary.com, for Christ's sake.

You presume much, sir.

StalinFanboy

3rd July 2009, 19:38

Well I'll be damned you got me.

I would like you to explain to me how fighting fascists because it is in our interests to do so is wrong.

Ele'ill

4th July 2009, 00:03

It would'nt be relocate or join us, it would be you can do whatever you want as long as you don't stop us from doing whatever we want to (when it comes to land and resources).

Stop changing what I'm replying to.

If a group of people formed their own government and acted as a community they could force people off their land, they could take land, they could take resources etc.

Most people would join the group.

Its never happened in the past.

I would argue that most of the 'revolutions' you'd list are not revolutions that involve the whole population and are rather a small group of people seperating from the larger population. (not really a revolution)

This plays into why they were unsuccessful and facing down such a large adversary.

also what do you mean by governments? You mean agroup of people who voluntarily follow some rules?

I mean government(s). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government 1-7

We would'nt aggressively engage people who agree to follow rules, however someone whos enforcing rules on other people who don't voluntarily agree is a different thing.

Like I said, we are stopping people from forcing other people against their will.

Most of the population are voluntarily agreeing to obey. Why do you need a revolution? Just separate. It will save you a lot of trouble. If people want to join you they will defect.