Restricted access because I'm a Socialist & not an Anarchist?

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Was told I'd have to put this in OI - have no idea why? Anyway.........

Would someone please mind explaining to me why I was restricted and unable to post for simply posting the following in relation to the ongoing events in London and other centres in the UK.

I was responding to the following post:

"Attacks on the police and private property by the working class are inherently political acts. Its called social war."


My reply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private property occupied by working class people. That is plain and simple vandalism. Yeah, the system is fucked but a misdirection of rage ain't gonna fix it. If the police attack me I'd fight back but I don't go looking for cops to attack or buildings to burn because of dogma. Lets follow your rationale through, when the police are gone, destroyed, who protects society? Who protects you? Or do you believe society will self regulate, lol. In a society where there are no police, who enforces law and order or do you simply depend on everyone behaving themselves? :laugh: In such a society you walk out the front door and are attacked by two guys, who protects you? A copy of the Communist Manifesto? Society needs the police, acting in the interests of the people, society needs law and order for the benefit of the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now would someone kindly tell me why I was restricted over that post? I am a Socialist, I am not an Anarchist. I realise on this forum there are both. Of course my comment about the Manifesto is nonsensical, as it was designed to be. However my basic premise that society needs law and order and defined rules and a police force stands. Yes, Anarchists would not agree however many Socialists recognise the need for police, not in it's current guise of course but that was not what I was saying. Rather than answering the points I raised or explaining ones POV, I simply got restricted.

While the brunt of numerous slurs and vulgarities I didn't bother responding in kind prefering not to stoop to such a level, yet I am restricted? lol But don't worry too much bout the slurs and vulgarities I can handle that just fine, lol. Anyway, if I was a fascist, yeah sure I can understand being restricted but why on earth would I get a restriction for simply stating what numerous other Socialists also believe? It makes no sense unless an Anarchist mod decided in his or her wisdom that they, for their own political reasons didn't like my POV. If someone can explain it to me, please do. Thanks.

[Aleenik]

I think it's incredibly stupid that you were given restricted access. I am against the police, and I know many here are, but you can be against Capitalism and still be for the police in a different form. :thumbdown: @ whoever gave you restricted access.

EDIT: After reading more by unpopularfreedomfront, I no longer support his 'take me off the restricted list' cause. I did originally though because I see no reason why someone can't be against Capitalism and for the police in a different form. Even though I disagree with that viewpoint.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Its because this site is secretly run by closet stalinsts

[ZeroNowhere]

Wrong thread.

[L.A.P.]

Because of the stupid shit you posted in the Tottenham riot thread.

"Restricted unpopularfreedomfront -- defender of private property, advocate of "law and order", friend of the bourgeois cops."

Thank god.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's incredibly stupid that you were given restricted access. I am against the police, and I know many here are, but you can be against Capitalism and still be for the police in a different form. :thumbdown: @ whoever gave you restricted access.
Yeah, just like moaning about law and order in relation to that topic has anything to do with a politics of the revolutionary transformation of the repressive apparatus.
The fact is, certain people in that thread were calling for the goddamned police to restore order. Imagine that, murderous pigs, the guardians of order.

It might have been that you've been caught in a crossfire of a shitstorm that has become of that thread.

Or maybe it was the ambiguous "private property occupied be working people". What did you mean by that? Apartments?

[PhoenixAsh]

If you defend the actions of cops you have no place in the revolutionary left.

Cops are per definition the enemy of the working class...period. There is no other opinion on this.

The entire policeforce has one function and one function only: to enforce burgeoisie laws and the enforce the defence of private property and the continued existence of the authority and hegemony of the ruling class and the unhampered continuation of class society and exploitation. Everything else is just a side issue which ultimately, in one form or other, serves the primary function.

There is no "other form of police" there is no other form of social/workers militia" in a capitalist society. There is only the policeforce which has aligned itself with and serves only the current capitalist authority.

This is not an abstract.
This is not complicated.
This is not something which is debatable.

If you defend the cops, if you defend the policeforce, you are defending the enemies of the working class.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Yeah, just like moaning about law and order in relation to that topic has anything to do with a politics of the revolutionary transformation of the repressive apparatus.
The fact is, certain people in that thread were calling for the goddamned police to restore order. Imagine that, murderous pigs, the guardians of order.

It might have been that you've been caught in a crossfire of a shitstorm that has become of that thread.

Or maybe it was the ambiguous "private property occupied be working people". What did you mean by that? Apartments?

I meant people who are too bloody poor to own and have to rent, yes. People who are working class people having what little possesions they own being destroyed by other working class people, yes.

Do I believe people, rioters, should be allowed to do as they wish: no. I would as I said before fully support a political action however as I said before this is NOT a political action.

[Le Socialiste]

Well, considering all revolutionary communists, socialists, and anarchists believe that the end goal of any revolution is the abolition of the state and class system, your comments regarding the restoration of "law and order" come off as reactionary. You consider the destruction and occupation of private property by the rioters to be vandalism, and therefore deserve the heavy-hand of the law. The problem with your statement lies in the fact that you don't take into consideration the root causes of the looting, destruction, and general rioting; the dissatisfaction and hostility towards decades of state and police oppression. Are there plenty of people taking advantage of the situation to get their own kicks in? I'm all but positive there are. But one cannot disregard the root socioeconomic/political reasons behind the current riots, nor can we take up a position that favors the restoration of what you consider "law and order". What revolutionary socialist would support the crackdown of the state and police - much less a capitalistic one at that?

[scarletghoul]

Its because this site is secretly run by closet stalinsts
i shouldnt be commenting so off-topic but my god, your avatar is amazing. PLEASE post very very often from now on; I really enjoyed seeing that image.

[ZeroNowhere]

Really, they have no right to a public hearing, or to any more attention than the rest of the OI bunch. Let them appeal this in the appropriate area.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Well, considering all revolutionary communists, socialists, and anarchists believe that the end goal of any revolution is the abolition of the state and class system, your comments regarding the restoration of "law and order" come off as reactionary. You consider the destruction and occupation of private property by the rioters to be vandalism, and therefore deserve the heavy-hand of the law. The problem with your statement lies in the fact that you don't take into consideration the root causes of the looting, destruction, and general rioting; the dissatisfaction and hostility towards decades of state and police oppression. Are there plenty of people taking advantage of the situation to get their own kicks in? I'm all but positive there are. But one cannot disregard the root socioeconomic/political reasons behind the current riots, nor can we take up a position that favors the restoration of what you consider "law and order". What revolutionary socialist would support the crackdown of the state and police - much less a capitalistic one at that?

And when one group of working class people are attacking another group of working class people? That's ok is it? We sit on our hands and say: good on ya comrade. In any post-capitalist society a police force will be needed, I don't see any way around that. As I explained a police force working for the people, not against the people. One can most certainly be a Socialist and recognise that there is a need for a police force!

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Really, they have no right to a public hearing, or to any more attention than the rest of the OI bunch. Let them appeal this in the appropriate area.

I was told by a mod that this is the appropriate area. "They", lol, is that the royal "they"? So let me get this straight ANY person on this forum who believes in law and order or a police force either now or after any possible revolution should be restricted. I just want to make sure I understand what people are saying.

[Revolution starts with U]

You expressed no support at all to the people. What you said was that the (attempt at) revolutionary action should be squashed by the police and the protesters returned home. You came out in tacit support of the power structure.
Case closed.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

If you defend the actions of cops you have no place in the revolutionary left.


If you defend the cops, if you defend the policeforce, you are defending the enemies of the working class.

Do you want to qualify your statement? Are you saying NEVER defend a cop no matter what the circumstance? NEVER help a cop no matter whatt the circumstance? I would really like clarification on your thought processes.

Enemies of the working class? Who are the ones destroying the businesses of small sole traders? Who are the ones who are destoying the possesions of other worling class people, who are the ones destroying the places they live in? I'll tell you who, the rioters. Your pals. And make no mistake about it, those rioters are not representative of the working class. And further make no mistake about it you are not representative of the working class.

[¿Que?]

In such a society you walk out the front door and are attacked by two guys, who protects you? A copy of the Communist Manifesto? Society needs the police, acting in the interests of the people, society needs law and order for the benefit of the people.
We should hope that in a post-revolutionary society, where everyone's necessities are met, that such things would be such rarities, that a police force designed for the purposes of preventing or protecting people from such things would be superfluous.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

You expressed no support at all to the people. What you said was that the (attempt at) revolutionary action should be squashed by the police and the protesters returned home. You came out in tacit support of the power structure.
Case closed.

No, if you read what I said I said from the begining that I did not believe this was a political action, this is an action by people who are apolitical. Violence in of itself does not make a revolutionary act, anyone who believes it does is very seriously mistaken. Politically motivated violence can be justified, has been justified as history shows us - violence without an aim is pointless and counterproductive.

I expressed full support to the people, to those working class people who are being driven out of their homes, those working class (small sole traders) who are being burnt out, those working class people who are trying to make the best they can out of the stinking capitalsit system we live in. Lets get one thing very clear: this is NOT what the people want.

[Klaatu]

In such a society you walk out the front door and are attacked by two guys, who protects you? A copy of the Communist Manifesto?

I think this is a subtle attack on Karl Marx. Please don't do that. I do not find it to be humorous nor clever.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Was told I'd have to put this in OI - have no idea why? Anyway.........

Would someone please mind explaining to me why I was restricted and unable to post for simply posting the following in relation to the ongoing events in London and other centres in the UK.

I was responding to the following post:

"Attacks on the police and private property by the working class are inherently political acts. Its called social war."


My reply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private property occupied by working class people. That is plain and simple vandalism. Yeah, the system is fucked but a misdirection of rage ain't gonna fix it. If the police attack me I'd fight back but I don't go looking for cops to attack or buildings to burn because of dogma. Lets follow your rationale through, when the police are gone, destroyed, who protects society? Who protects you? Or do you believe society will self regulate, lol. In a society where there are no police, who enforces law and order or do you simply depend on everyone behaving themselves? :laugh: In such a society you walk out the front door and are attacked by two guys, who protects you? A copy of the Communist Manifesto? Society needs the police, acting in the interests of the people, society needs law and order for the benefit of the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now would someone kindly tell me why I was restricted over that post? I am a Socialist, I am not an Anarchist. I realise on this forum there are both. Of course my comment about the Manifesto is nonsensical, as it was designed to be. However my basic premise that society needs law and order and defined rules and a police force stands. Yes, Anarchists would not agree however many Socialists recognise the need for police, not in it's current guise of course but that was not what I was saying. Rather than answering the points I raised or explaining ones POV, I simply got restricted.

While the brunt of numerous slurs and vulgarities I didn't bother responding in kind prefering not to stoop to such a level, yet I am restricted? lol But don't worry too much bout the slurs and vulgarities I can handle that just fine, lol. Anyway, if I was a fascist, yeah sure I can understand being restricted but why on earth would I get a restriction for simply stating what numerous other Socialists also believe? It makes no sense unless an Anarchist mod decided in his or her wisdom that they, for their own political reasons didn't like my POV. If someone can explain it to me, please do. Thanks.
You are restricted for being a pro-police asshat.

No socialist, who strives for the working class emancipation, supports a bourgeois institution which oppresses and abuses the working class world wide, serving only their capitalist masters.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

We should hope that in a post-revolutionary society, where everyone's necessities are met, that such things would be such rarities, that a police force designed for the purposes of preventing or protecting people from such things would be superfluous.

Oh I see, we live in hope, we cross our fingers? Okey dokey but in the meantime back here on planet earth what happens in the scenario I outlined. Lets assume such things are rarities and I for not one moment believe they would be what do you do when these rarities happen?

Why on earth would people think there would be no crime in a Socialist society, beyond belief really. Ever hear of paedophillia? Ever hear of rape? Ever hear of incest? Ever hear of cruelty to animals? These are just some examples. A Socialist society would hopefully deal with the material needs of people but how do you control their psychological needs or preversions? And what do you do when those needs or perversions manifest? Wish it away? "Hope" they won't manifest because if they do, oooops, nobody to step in and say no, no, no - you can't do that, that's illegal, that's against the law, your going to prison etc etc etc etc etc. Please do explain, I'm all ears.

[PhoenixAsh]

Do you want to qualify your statement? Are you saying NEVER defend a cop no matter what the circumstance? NEVER help a cop no matter whatt the circumstance? I would really like clarification on your thought processes.

I have said exactly what I said. It isn't that complicated to comprehend now is it?



Enemies of the working class? Who are the ones destroying the businesses of small sole traders? Who are the ones who are destoying the possesions of other worling class people, who are the ones destroying the places they live in?

No you silly...twig...

That would be the capitalists...and they are aided in that day to day reality by the police they instate and pay.

They do this through capitalist exploitation, by continuous cuts and austerity measures and by taking away privileges for which generations of socialists have fought and even died.

They do this by creating a system based on exploitation that is aimed to squeez the last drop out of people to disenfrachise them so they cost less and less to employ.

They do so in order to create a pool of cheap labour which they can hire for just about any price and as a warning and deterent for those who are not, yet, in that position.

Legalised robbery...empowered and encoded in bourgeoisie laws which protect private property



I'll tell you who, the rioters. Your pals. And make no mistake about it, those rioters are not representative of the working class. And further make no mistake about it you are not representative of the working class.

And you are clearly not a representative of the revolutionary left.

[Revolution starts with U]

No buddy. You even said yourself this property being destroyed is rental property. What you did was come out in support of (your own words) "private property" and tried to slip in some leftist-ish rhetoric on the side (how it's the people's property which they are renting from the ownership class) of the working class.
It's like you're telling abolitionists not to burn down the plantation because it's where the slave makes his livelihood.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

I think this is a subtle attack on Karl Marx. Please don't do that. I do not find it to be humorous nor clever.

All this proves is that you don't have a sense of humour :) Only kidding. I'll make fun out of anything, everything - myself included. At one time or another it seems I 'll always end up offending someone but hey, that's ok. The joy of the interweb, prepare to be abused and be willing to dish it out. I usually refrain from the latter, just couldn't be bothered but sometimes I do lay into people depends on my mood. lol

[PhoenixAsh]

Oh I see, we live in hope, we cross our fingers? Okey dokey but in the meantime back here on planet earth what happens in the scenario I outlined. Lets assume such things are rarities and I for not one moment believe they would be what do you do when these rarities happen?

Why on earth would people think there would be no crime in a Socialist society, beyond belief really. Ever hear of paedophillia? Ever hear of rape? Ever hear of incest? Ever hear of cruelty to animals? These are just some examples. A Socialist society would hopefully deal with the material needs of people but how do you control their psychological needs or preversions? And what do you do when those needs or perversions manifest? Wish it away? "Hope" they won't manifest because if they do, oooops, nobody to step in and say no, no, no - you can't do that, that's illegal, that's against the law, your going to prison etc etc etc etc etc. Please do explain, I'm all ears.


HEY...liberal asshat...

We do NOT endorse an institution which does NOTHING to aleviate these problems AT ALL. You have clearly NO CLUE what the policeforce is, what it does. You still live in some pipe dream that the police are your friend and are there to protect you from scary bad people.

Police do NONE of the things you claim they do. Police do NOT prevent pedophealia; police do NOT prevent rape; they do NOT prevent murder; they do NOT prevent riots and looting.

If intruders come into your house to kill you or cause you harm...and they are already in the front door...the cops will NOT protect you...they will arive too damned late for that to happen. But hey...they will probably write a report and do some investigating afterwards.

What they do is serve the authority line and protect private property of those in power and ensure the smooth functioning of society in order to have the least amount of disruption to continuous capitalist exploitation.

For everything else they are called in AFTER THE FACT....no prevention...AFTER THE FACT.

They work and are endebted to a system which cuts expenditure on mental health care; on affordable housing and care for people with mental problems; on rehabilitation in order to create cheap prison labour; cuts back on education; which perpetuates male entitlement and the patriarchical gender roles; which cuts back on social funding.

All these things the police protects and aids the ruling class in by enforcing these laws which in fact create, perpetuate and worsen all these psychological evils you are so fucking afraid off.

A system of security after the revolution will be provided NOT by a group of elitist slave enablers of authority but by workers arranged and controlled militia which do NOT operate from the perspective of what the duties of citizens are but on the basis of what their rights are.

Something which the current policeforce was never created or intended to do.

So stop your liberal meouwing and start reading some literature on the subject.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

No buddy. You even said yourself this property being destroyed is rental property. What you did was come out in support of (your own words) "private property" and tried to slip in some leftist-ish rhetoric on the side (how it's the people's property which they are renting from the ownership class) of the working class.
It's like you're telling abolitionists not to burn down the plantation because it's where the slave makes his livelihood.

Well, as I'd see it is private property in the sense that they are the occupiers, private in that sense. There have been private homes of working class people that have been destroyed thanks to these rioters, and no they are no revolutionaries, they are simply rioters. I've done one or two political actions in my time for which I could have landed in prison and what they are doing is NOT revolutionary.

[¿Que?]

Oh I see, we live in hope, we cross our fingers?
No, we fight. In the streets. Like in England...

Okey dokey but in the meantime back here on planet earth what happens in the scenario I outlined. Lets assume such things are rarities and I for not one moment believe they would be what do you do when these rarities happen?
Look man, I've walked out of my house millions of times and never been attacked by "two guys." Furthermore, most people haven't either. So they already are rarities. In other words, we're looking at rarities of the type like winning the lottery or something like that. Most of the anti-crime rhetoric, such as you mimic here, is fear mongering to get you to support repressive measures by police and government.

But I'll go along with your argument. Suppose it does happen in a Socialist society. How would that be any different than in a non-socialist society in the sense that they will probably attack you because the police cannot be everywhere at once and they certainly cannot predict where crime will occur. So you're stuck defending yourself either way. The point is, in a socialist society, you wouldn't have a repressive State dictating what happens to the criminals, through various racist and classist laws and bureaucracies that limit the capacity for disposed groups to defend themselves and plead their case.


Why on earth would people think there would be no crime in a Socialist society, beyond belief really. Ever hear of paedophillia? Ever hear of rape? Ever hear of incest? Ever hear of cruelty to animals? These are just some examples.
Most of those things happen because the people who commit those acts are mentally ill, and yet, healthcare is very limited even in societies providing free health care because the system is taxed to the maximum. In a socialist society, people would get the mental care they need, and thus their criminal tendencies would be severely reduced.


A Socialist society would hopefully deal with the material needs of people but how do you control their psychological needs or preversions?
When people are liberated from struggling for material necessities, then they are also liberated to explore and psychological needs. As to perversions, that's a relative term that you'll have to define more specifically (although I think I deal with it above).


And what do you do when those needs or perversions manifest? Wish it away? "Hope" they won't manifest because if they do, oooops, nobody to step in and say no, no, no - you can't do that, that's illegal, that's against the law, your going to prison etc etc etc etc etc. Please do explain, I'm all ears.
Already responded to this above. Also, don't be so condescending, it's not cool bro.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Well, as I'd see it is private property in the sense that they are the occupiers, private in that sense. There have been private homes of working class people that have been destroyed thanks to these rioters, and no they are no revolutionaries, they are simply rioters.


How is it not revolutionary?

rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y   [rev-uh-loo-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.
2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

ri·ot   [rahy-uht] Show IPA
noun
1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.


That's from dictionary.com. What we are seeing in the UK is revolutionary, albeit misguided or apolitical or call it what you want as many on this forum have. It is revolutionary in the sense that people are furious, and no longer are willing to take the "standard measure" that has been forced upon them by the state.


I've done one or two political actions in my time for which I could have landed in prison and what they are doing is NOT revolutionary.

And this makes you more what? Revolutionary? Prolier? It is merely your perspective. Some other people might deem your actions less revolutionary than what is happening right now.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

HEY...liberal asshat...

We do NOT endorse an institution which does NOTHING to aleviate these problems AT ALL. You have clearly NO CLUE what the policeforce is, what it does. You still live in some pipe dream that the police are your friend and are there to protect you from scary bad people.

Police do NONE of the things you claim they do. Police do NOT prevent pedophealia; police do NOT prevent rape; they do NOT prevent murder; they do NOT prevent riots and looting.

If intruders come into your house to kill you or cause you harm...and they are already in the front door...the cops will NOT protect you...they will arive too damned late for that to happen. But hey...they will probably write a report and do some investigating afterwards.

What they do is serve the authority line and protect private property of those in power and ensure the smooth functioning of society in order to have the least amount of disruption to continuous capitalist exploitation.

For everything else they are called in AFTER THE FACT....no prevention...AFTER THE FACT.

They work and are endebted to a system which cuts expenditure on mental health care; on affordable housing and care for people with mental problems; on rehabilitation in order to create cheap prison labour; cuts back on education; which perpetuates male entitlement and the patriarchical gender roles; which cuts back on social funding.

All these things the police protects and aids the ruling class in by enforcing these laws which in fact create, perpetuate and worsen all these psychological evils you are so fucking afraid off.

A system of security after the revolution will be provided NOT by a group of elitist slave enablers of authority but by workers arranged and controlled militia which do NOT operate from the perspective of what the duties of citizens are but on the basis of what their rights are.

Something which the current policeforce was never created or intended to do.

So stop your liberal meouwing and start reading some literature on the subject.

Asshat, lol, funny. Asswipe I can understand but asshat, what's that? Are you on the rag or something?

Workers arranged and controlled militia, ah what would be another name for that I wonder? Oh yeah, police. I never said police stop rape etc etc - sometimes they do actually, however a system of law and order would be needed post-revolution as you have just admitted. That law and order, those police/militia/guys in hats/guys in asshats, call em what you will would in effect have authority bestowed upon them by some other "group" to arrest, hold, detain, tackle, manhandle, keep under control those who did not follow societal norms, yes? Like I said, police.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Asshat, lol, funny. Asswipe I can understand but asshat, what's that? Are you on the rag or something?

Workers arranged and controlled militia, ah what would be another name for that I wonder? Oh yeah, police. I never said police stop rape etc etc - sometimes they do actually, however a system of law and order would be needed post-revolution as you have just admitted. That law and order, those police/militia/guys in hats/guys in asshats, call em what you will would in effect have authority bestowed upon them by some other "group" to arrest, hold, detain, tackle, manhandle, keep under control those who did not follow societal norms, yes? Like I said, police.
And this constitutes sexist speech. I gladly await your ban.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Asshat, lol, funny. Asswipe I can understand but asshat, what's that? Are you on the rag or something?

I see we have a sexist as well as a pig-lover.

*hack-spit*

[PhoenixAsh]

Asshat, lol, funny. Asswipe I can understand but asshat, what's that? Are you on the rag or something?

Workers arranged and controlled militia, ah what would be another name for that I wonder? Oh yeah, police. I never said police stop rape etc etc - sometimes they do actually, however a system of law and order would be needed post-revolution as you have just admitted. That law and order, those police/militia/guys in hats/guys in asshats, call em what you will would in effect have authority bestowed upon them by some other "group" to arrest, hold, detain, tackle, manhandle, keep under control those who did not follow societal norms, yes? Like I said, police.

And hence you are restricted. Because this post more than any other reactionary shit you posted show how little sense and understanding you have of the issue and how little knowledge you have.

If you can not comprehend the significant, essential, and very basic difference between where the current police and the post revolutionary militia get their authority from, who they report and answer to, what class they serve and what their primary duty and function is...then you can not seriously think we accept you as being anything more than just a liberal poser.

Asshat is not a complicated term. It means you have your head so far up your own ass that you are wearing it for a hat....thanks for proving my point in this post.

And seriously?..."on the rag". So after your reactionary burgeoisie call for law and order by the capie serves you now retort to sexism and male privilege gender posturing?

[unpopularfreedomfront]

And this constitutes sexist speech. I gladly await your ban.

Lol. Why is it sexist to suggest that someones hormones could be acting up when they start throwing insults about? :) Sounds perfectly rational to me. Check it up, it's well documented. Oh yes, I forgot, it's ok to insult people as long as you are gender neutral, how silly of me :rolleyes:

[Impulse97]

Do I believe people, rioters, should be allowed to do as they wish: no. I would as I said before fully support a political action however as I said before this is NOT a political action.

Your wrong. It is a political action. It's a protest against the cops and the system. The system fucks these people over and so do the cops. No one listens to them and treats them like criminals, so they loot and riot to get attention and get the problem fixed.


Well, as I'd see it is private property in the sense that they are the occupiers, private in that sense. There have been private homes of working class people that have been destroyed thanks to these rioters, and no they are no revolutionaries, they are simply rioters. I've done one or two political actions in my time for which I could have landed in prison and what they are doing is NOT revolutionary.

Private property does not need defending. You fail to see that it is what helps the caps exploit us. If I own property, I can use it to exploit others and it can't be shared by the community.

From AJE.com


The violence on the streets is being dismissed as "pure criminality", as the work of a "violent minority", as "opportunism". This is madly insufficient. It is no way to talk about viral civil unrest. Angry young people with nothing to do and little to lose are turning on their own communities, and they cannot be stopped, and they know it. Tonight, in one of the greatest cities in the world, society is ripping itself apart.

Violence is rarely mindless. The politics of a burning building, a smashed-in shop or a young man shot by police may be obscured even to those who lit the rags or fired the gun, but the politics are there. Unquestionably there is far, far more to these riots than the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting sparked off the unrest on Saturday when two police cars were set alight after a five-hour vigil at Tottenham police station.
A peaceful protest over the death of a man at police hands, in a community where locals have been given every reason to mistrust the forces of law and order, is one sort of political statement. Raiding shops for technology and trainers that cost ten times as much as the benefits you're no longer entitled to is another. A co-ordinated, viral wave of civil unrest across the poorest boroughs of Britain, with young people coming from across the capital and the country to battle the police, is another.


Again, from AJE.


Most of the people who will be writing, speaking and pontificating about the disorder this weekend have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up in a community where there are no jobs, no space to live or move, and the police are on the streets stopping-and-searching you as you come home from school. The people who do will be waking up this week in the sure and certain knowledge that after decades of being ignored and marginalised and harassed by the police, after months of not seeing any conceivable hope of a better future confiscated, they are finally on the news.


In one NBC report, a young man in Tottenham was asked if rioting really achieved anything:

"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?

Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night, a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

Eavesdropping from among the onlookers, I looked around. A dozen TV crews and newspaper reporters interviewing the young men everywhere.


There are communities all over the country that nobody paid attention to unless there had recently been a riot or a murdered child. Well, they're paying attention now.


http://aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189105816840954.html

[Aleenik]

After reading more by unpopularfreedomfront, I no longer support his 'take me off the restricted list' cause. I did originally though because I see no reason why someone can't be against Capitalism and for the police in a different form. Even though I disagree with that viewpoint.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Lol. Why is it sexist to suggest that someones hormones could be acting up when they start throwing insults about? :) Sounds perfectly rational to me. Check it up, it's well documented. Oh yes, I forgot, it's ok to insult people as long as you are gender neutral, how silly of me :rolleyes:
It's sexist, for one, because it generalizes all females on their period as angry, moody, or aggressive and you insinuate that menstruation is something bad. How are you going to explain a male that is moody, are they ticked off at their girlfriend for being "on the rag"?

You know, that question is like "Why is it racist to suggest that all black people are good at basketball, I mean, look at the NBA....lots o' black folk in there!".

You, sir, are an idiot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Lol. Why is it sexist to suggest that someones hormones could be acting up when they start throwing insults about? :) Sounds perfectly rational to me.

Not it fucking isn't. It's a baseless ad hominem, and one that specifically targets women to boot.


Check it up, it's well documented. Oh yes, I forgot, it's ok to insult people as long as you are gender neutral, how silly of me :rolleyes:

Well with an attitude like that you aren't getting out of OI any time soon. It remains to be seen whether you can dig yourself deeper and get banned.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lol. Why is it sexist to suggest that someones hormones could be acting up when they start throwing insults about? :) Sounds perfectly rational to me. Check it up, it's well documented. Oh yes, I forgot, it's ok to insult people as long as you are gender neutral, how silly of me :rolleyes:

Because you are suggesting that this is a female thing. Quantifying and qualifying it as something belonging to the female gender and sex role.

Aedit: how can you claim I am insulting you? You are litterally proving the accuracy and full applicability of my sattement with ever single post you make....everybody can see it...everybody knows it. I am just calling it. This can't be news to you. Somebody must have delivered you this news before. You behave like a pedantic, hautain and arrogant little critter thinking you are so smart and knowledgeable with your ultimate truths and reactionary liberal rethorics that you continue to fail to even try to understand what people are saying and trying to teach you and instead of learning and further inform yourself you try to belittle them by little smart-ass phrases and snide remarks hell bend on entrenching yourself in your own opinions which do not hold up to scrutiny nor reality. I can outline them for you if you wish...but I am pretty damned sure you know exactly what I am talking about that ticked me off.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Thanks for the input, folks. lol Netherlands girl, I used work in Holland a few times. I thought you Dutch were way more chillaxed :lol: My first time in Holland I had occasion to wear a balaclava but that's a long story, won't bore you. I know you have a revolution to plan :p Folks are right on one thing perhaps I do not fully understand the police as enforcers of the staus quo dynamic, perhaps I am naive in my belief process that they are there to protect. Maybe I have in a way been programmed in my thinking throiugh the mass media we have, could be, it's possible. Some good points people raised. I love debating things with people. Even if I don't truly believe something I'll often simply debate for the sake of it, lol, apologies - I probably shouldn't wind people up like that. Nonetheless I am a Socialist, it's just that I am not an Anarchist. I believe in development of Socialsim within the State structure if you see what I mean. Now I don't what "...ism" you want to put that under, I put it under Socialism, and no not National Socialism before someone says it.

I believe there's a school of thought called State Socialism so perhaps that best describes my stance. But maybe my POV is changing, change is good, keeps the mind active, keeps electricity flowing through the grey matter. Who knows next week maybe I'll be a god damn commie! lol Yeah, that is a joke. Why are people so serious on Revleft. Yes, I know it is serious business but nothing can be non-stop seriousness, it would make for very dull, depressed people. Folks always need to be able to laugh at themselves and at their beliefs and at purposeful exageration by others of their beliefs, see what I mean. Self deprecation is healthy for ya folks. Maybe it's just an Irish thing. It's all about intent and on the interweb, well, intent is very hard to judge. Anyway, the riots seems to have quietened down. I guess a part of me was wishing they would turn into something else, just a little flicker, but in reality it was never going to. The odds are always stacked agaisnt Socialism, we can try and who knows maybe sometime we'll be successful. We're in a dumbed down era of centrism, self-fulfillment and simple tiredness.



[/URL]






[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqxtBggVsi0"]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqxtBggVsi0)

[Klaatu]

All this proves is that you don't have a sense of humour :) Only kidding. I'll make fun out of anything, everything - myself included. At one time or another it seems I 'll always end up offending someone but hey, that's ok. The joy of the interweb, prepare to be abused and be willing to dish it out. I usually refrain from the latter, just couldn't be bothered but sometimes I do lay into people depends on my mood. lol

In my humble opinion, I see Marx as a prophet. This man was a true visionary. Problem is that most people in his day had no idea of his way of thinking (sans academics) so his ideas were slow to gather strength. And now, in the 21st century, when we need his ideas the most, there are powerful opposing forces from the dark side* which are more than able to confuse and mislead even a comparably educated electorate.

Marx may have been an atheist, but (in my view) his teachings were more that of righteous humanitarianism than were centuries of yes-men theologions and self-proclaimed "Christians." Why do I say this? Because he actually cared about PEOPLE, as did his contemporary, Charles Dickens, (who thought very highly of him!)

Besides, you wouldn't make fun of Jesus Christ and saints, would you?

the dark side: *modern-day dispicable conservative capitalistic religionist whacko hypocritical criminal gangsters

[CHE with an AK]

Its because this site is secretly run by closet stalinists
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


I wish


:ninja:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In my humble opinion, I see Marx as a prophet. This man was a true visionary. Problem is that most people in his day had no idea of his way of thinking (sans academics) so his ideas were slow to gather strength. And now, in the 21st century, when we need his ideas the most, there are powerful opposing forces from the dark side* which are more than able to confuse and mislead even a comparably educated electorate.

While it is true that Marx was a clever and insightful human (not a prophet!), and that Marxism has been attacked since day one, I must strongly object to this kind of religious language. It's all too easy to slip from religious language to religious thinking.


Marx may have been an atheist, but (in my view) his teachings were more that of righteous humanitarianism than were centuries of yes-men theologions and self-proclaimed "Christians." Why do I say this? Because he actually cared about PEOPLE, as did his contemporary, Charles Dickens, (who thought very highly of him!)

Besides, you wouldn't make fun of Jesus Christ and saints, would you?

I have, I do and I will.

[Klaatu]

While it is true that Marx was a clever and insightful human (not a prophet!), and that Marxism has been attacked since day one, I must strongly object to this kind of religious language. It's all too easy to slip from religious language to religious thinking.

I did not mean the term "prophet" in a religious sense, but I will accept an alternative definition, if you have one?



I have, I do and I will.

Now, now.

Think of Jesus as being the Very First Communist. (really!) That is what he seemed to teach about, in my view. (we should be using that!)

[unpopularfreedomfront]

In my humble opinion, I see Marx as a prophet. This man was a true visionary. Problem is that most people in his day had no idea of his way of thinking (sans academics) so his ideas were slow to gather strength. And now, in the 21st century, when we need his ideas the most, there are powerful opposing forces from the dark side* which are more than able to confuse and mislead even a comparably educated electorate.

Marx may have been an atheist, but (in my view) his teachings were more that of righteous humanitarianism than were centuries of yes-men theologions and self-proclaimed "Christians." Why do I say this? Because he actually cared about PEOPLE, as did his contemporary, Charles Dickens, (who thought very highly of him!)

Besides, you wouldn't make fun of Jesus Christ and saints, would you?

the dark side: *modern-day dispicable conservative capitalistic religionist whacko hypocritical criminal gangsters


Make fun of JC and the sunshine band? Not half, Christians and religous folk hate me. That's ok though, I think they're nutjobs anyway. Religion is the opium of the masses, I know someone more intelligent than me said that, lol. I have no prophets. Even though I'm agnostic atheist I'll be studying World Religions at uni in Sept, as a mature student. But that is from a philosophical POV than a religious one if you see what I mean. Someone else said: know your enemy, lol. Hope there's no religious nuts in the class.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its the avatar isn't it?

[Klaatu]

JC and the sunshine band

:laugh::lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

You behave like a pedantic, hautain and arrogant little critter thinking you are so smart and knowledgeable with your ultimate truths and reactionary liberal rethorics that you continue to fail to even try to understand what people are saying and trying to teach you and instead of learning and further inform yourself you try to belittle them by little smart-ass phrases and snide remarks hell bend on entrenching yourself in your own opinions which do not hold up to scrutiny nor reality.
Holy run-on sentence, Batman! :D


Folks are right on one thing perhaps I do not fully understand the police as enforcers of the staus quo dynamic, perhaps I am naive in my belief process that they are there to protect. Maybe I have in a way been programmed in my thinking throiugh the mass media we have, could be, it's possible. Some good points people raised. I love debating things with people. Even if I don't truly believe something I'll often simply debate for the sake of it, lol, apologies - I probably shouldn't wind people up like that. Nonetheless I am a Socialist, it's just that I am not an Anarchist.
You don't really have to be an anarchist to see what was wrong w your statement. Perhaps you had, and continue to, phrase yourself wrong?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I did not mean the term "prophet" in a religious sense, but I will accept an alternative definition, if you have one?

The term I would use is visionary, perhaps. Prophet has primarily religious connotations.


Now, now.

Think of Jesus as being the Very First Communist. (really!) That is what he seemed to teach about, in my view. (we should be using that!)

Absolutely not. Considering the lack of historicity for Jesus and the provenance of the Bible, I think claims of him being a communist of any kind are disingenuous.

[Klaatu]

Holy run-on sentence, Batman! :D


Apparently you haven't read much 19th-century literature :lol:

(Thoreau comes to mind)

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Holy run-on sentence, Batman! :D


You don't really have to be an anarchist to see what was wrong w your statement. Perhaps you had, and continue to, phrase yourself wrong?

Maybe. What statement are you referring to? In what way?

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Its the avatar isn't it?

:D

[Klaatu]

The term I would use is visionary, perhaps. Prophet has primarily religious connotations.
fair enough.




Absolutely not. Considering the lack of historicity for Jesus and the provenance of the Bible, I think claims of him being a communist of any kind are disingenuous.

Oh, I don't know. Historically accurate or not, I think JC's suggestion of "sell all of your possesions and come to follow me" seem to be anti-wealth, and anti-greed, and humanitarian in nature. (of course the word "sell" could have been "give") I might argue that this is the essence of Communism. (What say you?)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh, I don't know. Historically accurate or not, I think JC's suggestion of "sell all of your possesions and come to follow me" seem to be anti-wealth, and anti-greed, and humanitarian in nature. (of course the word "sell" could have been "give") I might argue that this is the essence of Communism. (What say you?)

Why should we follow what for we all we know is a fictional character, created by people with motives not of our own? Furthermore, most communists make a distinction between private property and person possessions. As far as I know Jesus does not make this distinction.

Jesus also says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's" (I paraphrase). Now the problem here is two-fold; communists see "Caesar's" claims as illegitimate, and since the evidence for God is thus far unforthcoming, God's claims are similarly in abeyance.

No gods, no masters.

[Agent Ducky]

Okay, this is a little off-topic but WOAH look at this guy's rep.....
Has its own classification.... Did that many people really neg them? Wow.

[Le Socialiste]

Asshat, lol, funny. Asswipe I can understand but asshat, what's that? Are you on the rag or something?

Workers arranged and controlled militia, ah what would be another name for that I wonder? Oh yeah, police. I never said police stop rape etc etc - sometimes they do actually, however a system of law and order would be needed post-revolution as you have just admitted. That law and order, those police/militia/guys in hats/guys in asshats, call em what you will would in effect have authority bestowed upon them by some other "group" to arrest, hold, detain, tackle, manhandle, keep under control those who did not follow societal norms, yes? Like I said, police.

Not okay man. Sexist positions aren't tolerated here - and for good reason. Add this to your reactionary attitude towards the riots and cops and it's no wonder you're restricted.

Edit - Turns out I'm nowhere finished with this post. The police only serve the interests of a select and privileged few - the ruling/capitalist-class. Their job is to ensure "law and order" prevails to the benefit of the state. I see you earlier pointed out you consider yourself a state socialist. It doesn't matter what color or ideology the state clothes itself with, a police force will still be used to subjugate the will of the masses to that of the state. In a truly revolutionary society, the need that drives and fuels present day crime (consequences of capitalism's parasitic and exploitative nature) will be largely eradicated due to the fact that people's basic life essentials will be met. The difference between a stateless, classless law enforcement force and a capitalistic one is a matter of who they will have to answer to in the end. In a revolutionized society, we won't need some other "group" to "arrest, hold, detain, tackle, manhandle," and keep us under control. What's more, how can you honestly defend the police's role in defending and upholding societal norms? I don't know about you, but I'd like to see my present society dismantled and left to rot in the "dustbin of history". Furthermore, who's to say what constitutes a social norm? Such "norms" do little good in constructing a mass movement. We shouldn't be defending such norms; instead, we should be working actively to undermine them. See, that's the thing about societal norms - they were made by us, and as such are open to dismantlement. Such things as gender roles, definitions of "deviant" behavior, etc. shouldn't be protected. They need to be pushed back and done away with.

[the Leftâ„¢]

i shouldnt be commenting so off-topic but my god, your avatar is amazing. PLEASE post very very often from now on; I really enjoyed seeing that image.

:laugh:

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Not okay man. Sexist positions aren't tolerated here - and for good reason. Add this to your reactionary attitude towards the riots and cops and it's no wonder you're restricted.

Edit - Turns out I'm nowhere finished with this post. The police only serve the interests of a select and privileged few - the ruling/capitalist-class. Their job is to ensure "law and order" prevails to the benefit of the state. I see you earlier pointed out you consider yourself a state socialist. It doesn't matter what color or ideology the state clothes itself with, a police force will still be used to subjugate the will of the masses to that of the state. In a truly revolutionary society, the need that drives and fuels present day crime (consequences of capitalism's parasitic and exploitative nature) will be largely eradicated due to the fact that people's basic life essentials will be met. The difference between a stateless, classless law enforcement force and a capitalistic one is a matter of who they will have to answer to in the end. In a revolutionized society, we won't need some other "group" to "arrest, hold, detain, tackle, manhandle," and keep us under control. What's more, how can you honestly defend the police's role in defending and upholding societal norms? I don't know about you, but I'd like to see my present society dismantled and left to rot in the "dustbin of history". Furthermore, who's to say what constitutes a social norm? Such "norms" do little good in constructing a mass movement. We shouldn't be defending such norms; instead, we should be working actively to undermine them. See, that's the thing about societal norms - they were made by us, and as such are open to dismantlement. Such things as gender roles, definitions of "deviant" behavior, etc. shouldn't be protected. They need to be pushed back and done away with.

Sexist? Ah seriously, I don't have a sexist bone in my body but yes I see how you may think I have. Anyway. leaving the "on the rag" bit aside (I'll admit I may not be very PC but isn't being PC succumbing to a societal norm?) And didn't you just say you were against societal norms? I'm confused, no seriously I am confused. I do not undertsnad what society you would like to see develop? Even in an Anarchist society won't there be societal norms? I'd be very interested in some info here rather than name calling and a descent into farce.

Is the problem that I would see myself as a Socialist and you would see yourself as an Anarchist? I know that during the Spanish Republic there were huge differences and problems which eventually led to violence between Socialists and Anarchists? From where I sit a Socialist society isn't by definition an Anarchist society. What is meant by the term "revolutionary left", wanting a revolution? Yes, I want a leftwing revolution, I just it seems don't want the same type as you do.

What is meant by "reactionary", I mean I know the meaning of it as on other forums I have often applied it to rightwingers etc - but I am not a rightwinger, far from it actually. How can one group of Socialists and Anarachists decide that another Socialist is reactionary? Or is the problem possibly that it is Anarchists deciding to apply that term to a Socialist if you see what I mean? What are the defining charictaristics? Not agreeing with everything some people say? Not wanting an Anarchist society? If that is sthe case then shouldn't very many more on Revleft, those Socialists who are not Anaarchists also be termed "reactionary". For example I could easily term the rioters in London as counter revolutionary.

You made reference to the fact that in an Anarchist society deviant behaviour wouldn't be deviant any longer? Did I understand that correctly? By that do you mean that paedophilia would be acceptable? That incest would be acceptable? That animal cruelty would be acceptable? Sorry I'm not trying to be "difficult" or anything I simply can't grasp your concept? In your society who decides what is right and what is wrong? I mean, "who", do others decide for others or is it left upto the individual with no consequences or sanction for their actions? I don't understand how such a society can or would function. Thanks.

[ComradeMan]

If you defend the actions of cops you have no place in the revolutionary left. .

So what would you do if someone was trying to set your house on fire? Who would you call if you were robbed in the street?

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Okay, this is a little off-topic but WOAH look at this guy's rep.....
Has its own classification.... Did that many people really neg them? Wow.

Have I my own classification? :lol: I feel special now, lol. Don't worry it's the negbot, people love me really.

[RGacky3]

Is'nt the whole point of restriction to keep discussion about socialism and the revolutionary left for socialists and revolutionary leftists, it seams like restriction has kind of gone way behond that making the definition narrower and narrower.

[Revolution starts with U]

So what would you do if someone was trying to set your house on fire? Who would you call if you were robbed in the street?

Well, if he has a gun, Id get mine. If not, Id grab my bo staff. But either way, Id come out the house where he can't target me and start yelling about being robbed. Then my neighbors would come out as well. I think 3-10 people should be enough to scare the guy off.
Point is, I'll handle it myself. THe cops won't show up til long after my house is already on fire, in which case I would much more appreciate the services of the fire department. All the cops MIGHT be good for is catching the guy after he got away. And I have to say.... Im not much into retaliation... it usually means you identify your "things"with your "self."

Seriously tho, if you're being robbed by some random mugger, the cops are doing you NO good. You don't live in or near a city do you? And in your particular case, didn't Jesus say "If a man tries to rob you, give him your money, your coat, and walk him home?"

[Revolution starts with U]

Sexist? Ah seriously, I don't have a sexist bone in my body but yes I see how you may think I have. Anyway. leaving the "on the rag" bit aside (I'll admit I may not be very PC but isn't being PC succumbing to a societal norm?) And didn't you just say you were against societal norms? I'm confused, no seriously I am confused. I do not undertsnad what society you would like to see develop? Even in an Anarchist society won't there be societal norms? I'd be very interested in some info here rather than name calling and a descent into farce.
If gay jokes are gay bashing, menstruation jokes are sexist. Plain and simple. You do realize most racists don't admit to themselves they're racist right? How often do you see someone just out and say racist shit w no remorse? They usually preference it with "Now Im not racist but..."


Is the problem that I would see myself as a Socialist and you would see yourself as an Anarchist? I know that during the Spanish Republic there were huge differences and problems which eventually led to violence between Socialists and Anarchists? From where I sit a Socialist society isn't by definition an Anarchist society. What is meant by the term "revolutionary left", wanting a revolution? Yes, I want a leftwing revolution, I just it seems don't want the same type as you do.
Im not sure you understand the difference between socialists and anarchists. Also, you weren't restricted for not supporting anarchism. You were restricted for supporting bourgeoisie property and institutions. You (probably) don't even have to support the rioters. But the way you came out against them was purely in protection of the status quo, and nothing more.


What is meant by "reactionary", I mean I know the meaning of it as on other forums I have often applied it to rightwingers etc - but I am not a rightwinger, far from it actually. How can one group of Socialists and Anarachists decide that another Socialist is reactionary? Or is the problem possibly that it is Anarchists deciding to apply that term to a Socialist if you see what I mean? What are the defining charictaristics? Not agreeing with everything some people say? Not wanting an Anarchist society? If that is sthe case then shouldn't very many more on Revleft, those Socialists who are not Anaarchists also be termed "reactionary". For example I could easily term the rioters in London as counter revolutionary.
Reactionary means you support the status quo or a previous society of oppression. It means you "react" to progressive societal change in a negative way.

[Meridian]

This is not an abstract.
This is not complicated.
This is not something which is debatable.
Sign me out of this site right now. Please, delete my account. This is the stupidest post I have ever seen. It seems many people here agree with this point of view. If so it is a complete shame to have any affiliation with this site.

Fucking idiots.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Well, if he has a gun, Id get mine. If not, Id grab my bo staff. But either way, Id come out the house where he can't target me and start yelling about being robbed. Then my neighbors would come out as well. I think 3-10 people should be enough to scare the guy off.
Point is, I'll handle it myself. THe cops won't show up til long after my house is already on fire, in which case I would much more appreciate the services of the fire department. All the cops MIGHT be good for is catching the guy after he got away. And I have to say.... Im not much into retaliation... it usually means you identify your "things"with your "self."

Seriously tho, if you're being robbed by some random mugger, the cops are doing you NO good. You don't live in or near a city do you? And in your particular case, didn't Jesus say "If a man tries to rob you, give him your money, your coat, and walk him home?"

Yeah, I see what you are saying but that's just one relatively simple incident. But what happens in an Anarchist society/community when there's a paedophile abusing kids or there's incest or there's the abuse of animals etc etc. How does the "group", call it community, society, whatever, come together to decide what sanction to place on that person? Who decides this? Who enforces this? Are there prisons? Who guards the prisons? Are there courts where one can plead their case? Who organises these courts? Who sits in judgement? I'm sorry but while ideally perhaps a noble aim I cannot see how a society without organisational structures would work in practice.

And because I say organisational don't mistake me for some law and order rightwinger, I'm not. But how can an Anarchist society protect those within that society? Who decides what?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yeah, I see what you are saying but that's just one relatively simple incident. But what happens in an Anarchist society/community when there's a paedophile abusing kids or there's incest or there's the abuse of animals etc etc. How does the "group", call it community, society, whatever, come together to decide what sanction to place on that person? Who decides this? Who enforces this? Are there prisons? Who guards the prisons? Are there courts where one can plead their case? Who organises these courts? Who sits in judgement? I'm sorry but while ideally perhaps a noble aim I cannot see how a society without organisational structures would work in practice.

And because I say organisational don't mistake me for some law and order rightwinger, I'm not. But how can an Anarchist society protect those within that society? Who decides what?
There will be an organized worker's militia. This worker's militia will have trained investigators taking part in it.

It's that simple.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

If gay jokes are gay bashing, menstruation jokes are sexist. Plain and simple. You do realize most racists don't admit to themselves they're racist right? How often do you see someone just out and say racist shit w no remorse? They usually preference it with "Now Im not racist but..."


Im not sure you understand the difference between socialists and anarchists. Also, you weren't restricted for not supporting anarchism. You were restricted for supporting bourgeoisie property and institutions. You (probably) don't even have to support the rioters. But the way you came out against them was purely in protection of the status quo, and nothing more.


Reactionary means you support the status quo or a previous society of oppression. It means you "react" to progressive societal change in a negative way.

Maybe plain and simple to you. However that in reality is not the case, it all depends on intent. And as I explained intent is difficult to judge on the internet. If someone calls someone a, b or c they could be doing so for any number of reasons. It isn't by definition malicous. Listen I'm not going to get hung up over political correctness but by all means you can.

"You were restricted for supporting bourgeoisie property and institutions"? Oh I see, saying working class people should not be attacking other working class people and burning them out of their homes and burning their goods and their cars and their possesions is supporting the bourgeoise. Oh yeah, you're right, how come I didn't realise that before? :rolleyes: The way I came out was in protection of other working class people from apolitical hooligans. So you are basically saying, you don't have to support the rioters but if you condemn them you'll be restricted? Huh, sounds like a: Don't ask, don't tell policy. How very reactionary.

As for being "reactionary", first you need to decide what you believe is positive social change. As I said I believe political action (violence) is and can be justified (history has shown this to be true) However as I went on to say what we were seeing was not political violence. It was not revolutionary and by definition was not positive social change and as such as a Socialist - not as an Anarchist - as a Socialist I had no imperative to support it, in fact I had a moral and political obligation to distance myself from it and condemn it. I am sure there are many on Revleft who abhor the violence in the UK and the rioters actions and who have publicly said so on this forum, has everyone of them been restricted? Somehow I think not. This is supposedly a forum for Socialists and Anarchists and NOT for Anarchists alone.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

There will be an organized worker's militia. This worker's militia will have trained investigators taking part in it.

It's that simple.

Simple? Who organises this militia? Who decides that a militia should even be organised in the first instance? What if some within the community want a militia and others do not? Does each community orgnaise it's own militia? Are the militia's permanent strutures? What is the decison making process within each militia? Are militia's interdependent? Or are they autonomous? What happens if one militia disagrees with the actions of another militia? I have more questions but if these few could be answered that would be a start. To say "it's that simple!" makes me shake my head.

[Paulappaul]

But what happens in an Anarchist society/community when there's a paedophile abusing kids or there's incest or there's the abuse of animals etc etc.

How does the "group", call it community, society, whatever, come together to decide what sanction to place on that person? Who decides this? Who enforces this? Are there prisons? Who guards the prisons? Are there courts where one can plead their case? Who organises these courts? Who sits in judgement? I'm sorry but while ideally perhaps a noble aim I cannot see how a society without organisational structures would work in practice.


I think you are misunderstanding the Socialist (and Anarchist) position. Socialism is against coercion and hierarchy and acts everywhere to stop it. On and Individual bases and as a community it acts forcefully (if need be) to stop it. Now before you say "that is a police force" blah blah, it isn't. A police officer is totally different. If people stopped a pedophile or a robber that doesn't make police officers. Fuck, that happens every day. Am I a Police Officer if I stop a killer or a good person? I would imagine that the Community would by mass assemblies or by Workers' Councils come to elect recallable citizens delegated to certain neighborhoods who in the case of murder, robbery, mismanagement or whatever who could be contacted and would act to resolve a case. That doesn't seem like rocket science and they aren't police officers. There are Community resolvers in primitive societies you know?

Now Police Officers are enemies of the working class and should be hunted down. They act to reinforce Capitalist relations and will continue I think till the final stages of Rebellion.

[PhoenixAsh]

Sign me out of this site right now. Please, delete my account. This is the stupidest post I have ever seen. It seems many people here agree with this point of view. If so it is a complete shame to have any affiliation with this site.

Fucking idiots.

Yes, so many people agree with this point of view because its simply the truth. You can argue till you are blue in your face but in the end...whatever you will argue or whatever arguments you will bring forth wil not hold up to the simple fact that throughout history, in its very conception and its very function policeforces have always been first and foremost the protectorate of property; the elite and the smooth operation of society in order to maintain its economic stability and perpetuation through enforcing the laws of the elite.

Now...I could cite a hundred sources, both socialist and anti-socialist, and slight details may vary but there is nothing you can say, nor bring forth to the argument, which can and will devalue this.

But, perhaps, instead of comming to the table with empty gestures and platitudes you might actually want to try and disprove my statement by giving me, us, some nice examples of why you think its debatable what the primary function of the policeforce is and actually try to start a debate.

[The Douche]

Before I answer your questions, I have one of my own, which relates to why you were restricted.

Why do you defend private property, while claiming to be opposed to private property?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah, I see what you are saying but that's just one relatively simple incident. But what happens in an Anarchist society/community when there's a paedophile abusing kids or there's incest or there's the abuse of animals etc etc. How does the "group", call it community, society, whatever, come together to decide what sanction to place on that person? Who decides this? Who enforces this? Are there prisons? Who guards the prisons? Are there courts where one can plead their case? Who organises these courts? Who sits in judgement? I'm sorry but while ideally perhaps a noble aim I cannot see how a society without organisational structures would work in practice.
I still recognize the need for legal institutions. WHat I am saying is that I am not that worried about it. I will take care of mine, and let the chips fall where they will.
Your problem wasn't in supporting police. Your problem was supporting police in their maintenance of bourgie property and institutions.


]Maybe plain and simple to you. However that in reality is not the case, it all depends on intent. And as I explained intent is difficult to judge on the internet. If someone calls someone a, b or c they could be doing so for any number of reasons. It isn't by definition malicous. Listen I'm not going to get hung up over political correctness but by all means you can.
Your intent was to show that anyone who whines is acting like a woman on her period. Your intent was sexist. You don't want to get hung up on it, because you fear your own demons.


"You were restricted for supporting bourgeoisie property and institutions"? Oh I see, saying working class people should not be attacking other working class people and burning them out of their homes and burning their goods and their cars and their possesions is supporting the bourgeoise. Oh yeah, you're right, how come I didn't realise that before? :rolleyes: The way I came out was in protection of other working class people from apolitical hooligans. So you are basically saying, you don't have to support the rioters but if you condemn them you'll be restricted? Huh, sounds like a: Don't ask, don't tell policy. How very reactionary.
It's really all in how you phrased it. Im not sure on the specifics (whether people were burned out of their homes. Looked like it was mostly stores getting f'ed up). But your problem was condemning them for (your words) "attacking private property." Only later did you say "oh i wish they would do this more productively." But your first priority was (your words) "defending private property."

A
s for being "reactionary", first you need to decide what you believe is positive social change. As I said I believe political action (violence) is and can be justified (history has shown this to be true) However as I went on to say what we were seeing was not political violence. It was not revolutionary and by definition was not positive social change and as such as a Socialist - not as an Anarchist - as a Socialist I had no imperative to support it, in fact I had a moral and political obligation to distance myself from it and condemn it. I am sure there are many on Revleft who abhor the violence in the UK and the rioters actions and who have publicly said so on this forum, has everyone of them been restricted? Somehow I think not. This is supposedly a forum for Socialists and Anarchists and NOT for Anarchists alone.
Im sure they didn't come out in support of "defending private property." How did you NOT think that comment would get you restricted?
(Let me just say that I am no fan of the restriction system. I think the mods are a clique that restrict based on their own personal whims. But whatever. The restriction system is in place. And you should a) not care what some people on the internet think of you, and b) be prepared to be restricted if you "break the rules.")

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Before I answer your questions, I have one of my own, which relates to why you were restricted.

Why do you defend private property, while claiming to be opposed to private property?

I do and I don't if you see what I mean. I guess it depends what you think as being private property. Ok, I would see a normal working class family who have bought a house as that house being private property, that is, it is theirs, it is private. It is not the States because we don't live in a Socialist State, wish we did but we don't, the reality. I believe they, that family, should be safe in their own homes. Is this too much to ask for? One woman in her 60's had her home broken into by rioters aremed with a molotov who demanded money or they'd burn it down, she gave them what she had and they still tossed it into her kitchen and ran off. Now if anyone here thinks these scum are revolutionaries they are VERY VERY VERY mistaken. If I as an individual saw that happen I would kick the living shit out of them.

Then you have the sole trader business owners trying to make a living within the capitalist system, why within the sytem? Because right now it's the only fucking thing that exists, wish it wasn't but it is. Now they have had their small shops etc destroyed. Then you have the peope who rent and live above mnay of the shops that were destroyed, jumping from windows, running out of their homes with what little personal possesions they can gather. And people justify this as being an attack against the system, please! It is an attack against workers. It is an attack against the community made up of those workers. You could go as far as saying it was in fact counter revolutionary. Now if someone burns down a Sony Distrinution Centre then I'm not too bothered but when they attack other workers and put their lives at risk and destroy their possesions and force them out of their homes, rented or otherwise then yes, I will not under any circumstances suport that thuggery.

[PhoenixAsh]

So what would you do if someone was trying to set your house on fire? Who would you call if you were robbed in the street?

Last time I was robbed I called an ambulance because I broke the guys nose and busted his knee. After that I got arrested, indicted and fined for assault at the sum of 500 euro's. The one time before that I called the police, they made a report and never did anything with it. I called a few weeks later and it was still under investigation. So fat lot of good that did...now didn't it?

Or the time when one of the friends of a housemate kicked in the door after they had a dispute and my girlfriend got hit in the face with the door and had a broken eyesocket. She called the police and they said there was nothing they could do because it was a student house and therefore did not classify as breaking and entering.

Or the time when one of my mates was getting dead threads from the ex of his new girlfriend. Welll....the police said they couldn't actually do anything untill something happened. So something happened...he was attacked and my friend kicked the shit out of the guy. And he got two weeks enforced social work.

Or the time there was a series of break ins in the neighborhood where my parents live. Middle class...7 break-ins in two months BEFORE the cops decided to send in two extra patrol cars...which offcourse they substracted from the patrol units in the flat (poorer) neighborhood...with the result three girls got assaulted and one got raped at night...right in front of the burrow station (which was not manned because these cops were patrolling middle class neighborhoods).

Or the time my father (at that time 67) got assaulted by our neighbor (39 sport instructor) in our garden? His glasses were kicked of his face and he had a black eye. But he was raking the grass so he hit the neighbor full on the head with the stickside. This was eventually settled out of court but the cops who came after my mom called DID want to arrest him.

Or were you perhaps refering to when some kids (8-14) from my street were playing in an upper class neighborhood two block away and playing football and they all got arrested, taken down town to the police station and were locked up in a cel for three hours before they called their parents....because one of those uppity fuckers complained that they were playing too close to his car (which was parked right next to a little playground thingy btw).

So yeah...nope...police...they are your friend :rolleyes:

When somebody is trying to set my house on fire I'll kick the shit out of them if I can't do that...there is no use in calling the cops. By the time they get there my house will be on fire and they will call the fire department who, by the time tehy get there, will probably have to deal with the ashes.

In fact...my room burned down in december 2000. I was away for 7 minutes. And there was an electrical short. The fire department arrived within time...10 minutes...and there was nothing left. The police were first on the scene...with the station being across the streets. They did NOTHING. We had to start evacuating the building and warn the neighbors ourselves.

But I tell you what....when there was an action of squatters a few months back...the riot police was full force in front of my house (the action happened two side streets further down in a museum depot). 4 vans, armoured vehicle, about 40 riot cops in full gear, dogs....in the middle of teh fucking night. I wasn't allowed to enter the street because of the action which took several hours. I had to wait outside to be able to get into my own house which is three doors down from the corner...about ten meters...eventhough the action was twee side streets away...400 meters or so...and NOTHING happened in my street at all.

Those squatters were kicked, beaten, bitten, sprayed with pepperspray eventhough they were NOT resisting arrest and merely were chained to doors and furniture or to each other. Four of them had to be treated in hospital.

So yeah...reason why? Empty depot was private property. And you all know we have to protect private property. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

It really doesn't matter if it is an attack on people, it is still an attack on the system. It is the natural outcome of austerity. It is an opportunity for a lesson to be learned; that you can't shift the burden onto the lower classes, and treat them like scum without this kind of reaction. It's much like the Rodney King riots. Those weren't really about RK, that's just what set the spark off. Those riots were about decades of those communities being treated like absolute scum. And they taught the power structure a lesson; give leeway to the lower classes, or they will cut your fucking head off, because they have nothing to live for.

@Hindsight: I would thank that 1k times if I could.

[PhoenixAsh]

Or should I perhaps account of the numerous occasions I was stopped and searched for no reason at all?

Or of the time neighbors called the cop when there was yet another situation of abuse and I was standing there with bruises, black eye, bloody nose..and I was the one arrested?

Or about the only fucking time I actually had some benefit from the cops and they did not keep me overnight against procedure it was NOT because I was defending myself and was right (as was later established in court) but because she was a racist pig and the guy who got me arrested was from the Antilles and simply didn't like him for that?


Come one...tell me the police are the right fuckers to call?

Or shoulld I perhaps tell about the time an ex-comrade of mine got in some spat with his girlfriend, beat her and she called the cops on him during a meeting of our group (unbeknownst to her) with some ppl who were subsequently arrested and deported but the guy was let go...eventhough he busted her up pretty good? (we handled that internally).

Or the time a student a few houses down was sexually assaulted by a house mate; he disappeared in jail for a few weeks (!!) then came back and was allowd back into the very same house. And when he threatened her the advice the police gave was: move.


SO fuck yeah! the police! Yeah for the police!


Or perhaps about the student demonstrations back in 1994 a year after the riot police had used excessive force to such an extend the government had to pay victims a sum. THey decided NOT to charge (I was standing a few feet away from them) because the main body of the protests was standing on cobbled streets and that provided too much ammo and might hurt the dogs!!! NOT because there was little happening but because it might hurt the police dogs!

[Sasha]

there is an "unfair restrictions" sticky, you can make your case there, make sure to read the thread rules first.

thread closed