lombas' Moronic "Anarchy" [Archive]

lombas

22nd September 2007, 20:45

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 22, 2007 06:40 pm--> (rev0lt @ September 22, 2007 06:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:00 am

Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm
In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.
Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.
Next you'll be arguing for the freedom of private property. [/b]
Sure, why not? If that's how certain people feel it should be done, let them have it.

Comrade Rage

22nd September 2007, 21:09

YIKES! I mean, I have some libertarian views, but whoa!

What you have to realize that the concept of private property is not free.

spartan

22nd September 2007, 21:17

CC:
What you have to realize that the concept of private property is not free.
QFT :D
lombas by the time of the revolution the only people believing in private property will be a small minority of people who want to hold on to the power that OWNING something (Let alone property) gives them. And seeing how our future direct Democratic style of society where the majority rules and not the minority like we have in our current Capitalist system now then this minority will have no choice but to help us abolish property or declare themselves counter revolutionaries of course.

Faux Real

22nd September 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by lombas+September 22, 2007 12:45 pm--> (lombas @ September 22, 2007 12:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:00 am

Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm
In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.
Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.
Next you'll be arguing for the freedom of private property.
Sure, why not? If that's how certain people feel it should be done, let them have it.[/b]
Because the freedom of private property, racism, and sexism in the hands of those 'certain people' flourish at the expense of other people's supposed freedoms.

But hey, why hold accountable those who limit our freedom... :rolleyes:

Clearly bigotry and lack of compromise is allowed in your view of "anarchy".

Eleftherios

22nd September 2007, 21:51

Originally posted by lombas+September 22, 2007 07:45 pm--> (lombas @ September 22, 2007 07:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:00 am

Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm
In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.
Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.
Next you'll be arguing for the freedom of private property.
Sure, why not? If that's how certain people feel it should be done, let them have it. [/b]
I hope you mean personal property, because many people cannot differentiate between the two

lombas

22nd September 2007, 22:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:17 pm
CC:
What you have to realize that the concept of private property is not free.
QFT :D
lombas by the time of the revolution the only people believing in private property will be a small minority of people who want to hold on to the power that OWNING something (Let alone property) gives them. And seeing how our future direct Democratic style of society where the majority rules and not the minority like we have in our current Capitalist system now then this minority will have no choice but to help us abolish property or declare themselves counter revolutionaries of course.
Democracy contradicts with anarchy, I humbly think. The only form of decision-making in an anarchist society can be unanimous vote or something like voluntary concession making.

I also think anarchy itself will make most private ownership of the means of production go away since there is no external force guaranteeing its stability. From then on, the people themselves will have to provide for such stability and thus create true voluntary order.

I think Kibbutz, for instance.

My humble thoughts, of course.

lombas

22nd September 2007, 22:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:30 pm

Because the freedom of private property, racism, and sexism in the hands of those 'certain people' flourish at the expense of other people's supposed freedoms.

But hey, why hold accountable those who limit our freedom... :rolleyes:

Clearly bigotry and lack of compromise is allowed in your view of "anarchy".
I don't take things that seriously.

Faux Real

22nd September 2007, 23:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:46 pm
I don't take things that seriously.
Evidently. Self-satisfied much?

Democracy contradicts with anarchy, I humbly think. The only form of decision-making in an anarchist society can be unanimous vote or something like voluntary concession making.
There are plenty versions of democracy, leftist anarchy being closest to direct democracy. In which negotiation, compromise and concession will be made for what is in the interest of all, without false representatives. As 'unanimous' this might sound, it would possible to opt out of such decisions which affect the individual, as long as such actions remain harmless to the rest of the people.

I also think anarchy itself will make most private ownership of the means of production go away since there is no external force guaranteeing its stability.
"No external force" means it's public ownership.

I think Kibbutz, for instance.
Kibbutzim fails. That movement employed Arabs as labourers, meanwhile excluding them from joining the Kibbutz as members, thanks to Zionism.

No wonder xenophobia is A-OK with you.

lombas

23rd September 2007, 00:12

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 22, 2007 10:31 pm--> (rev0lt @ September 22, 2007 10:31 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 02:46 pm
I don't take things that seriously.
Evidently. Self-satisfied much?[/b]

Obviously, as you say so.

Democracy contradicts with anarchy, I humbly think. The only form of decision-making in an anarchist society can be unanimous vote or something like voluntary concession making.
There are plenty versions of democracy, leftist anarchy being closest to direct democracy. In which negotiation, compromise and concession will be made for what is in the interest of all, without false representatives. As 'unanimous' this might sound, it would possible to opt out of such decisions which affect the individual, as long as such actions remain harmless to the rest of the people.

"Leftist" anarchy? Not following. There is no "left" and "right" in anarchy - anarchy is not politics.

In anarchy, however, the more Athenian style of voluntary democracy is sure to rise and shine again.

I also think anarchy itself will make most private ownership of the means of production go away since there is no external force guaranteeing its stability.
"No external force" means it's public ownership.

Uhu.

I think Kibbutz, for instance.
Kibbutzim fails. That movement employed Arabs as labourers, meanwhile excluding them from joining the Kibbutz as members, thanks to Zionism.

No wonder xenophobia is A-OK with you.

Boy, we're in a very judging mood today, are we?

Faux Real

23rd September 2007, 00:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:12 pm
"Leftist" anarchy? Not following. There is no "left" and "right" in anarchy - anarchy is not politics.
Anarcho-capitalism (anarchist right), anarcho-communism (anarchist left). Take your pick.

In anarchy, however, the more Athenian style of voluntary democracy is sure to rise and shine again.
Democracy for the male, property, land and slave owners?

Uhu.
Concession?

Boy, we're in a very judging mood today, are we?
Great.
I don't see you proving me otherwise. :)

Jazzratt

23rd September 2007, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:12 pm
"Leftist" anarchy? Not following. There is no "left" and "right" in anarchy - anarchy is not politics.
What a load of complete bollocks. Maybe there is no left or right in your anarchy, but yours sounds like the anarchy of the frustrated middle-class student rather than the anarchy of the class conscious worker. Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism and most strains of anarchy except the fringe ones (primitivism, post-left, Individualist) are leftist and all strains are political. It doesn't matter whether the proponents of one stripe of anarchy are pretentious enough to declare it above politics or not, anarchy is and always will be political.

In anarchy, however, the more Athenian style of voluntary democracy is sure to rise and shine again.

It didn't shine in Athens, in sure as fuck won't be rising in any working class anarchy.

lombas

23rd September 2007, 00:26

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 22, 2007 11:18 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 22, 2007 11:18 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:12 pm
"Leftist" anarchy? Not following. There is no "left" and "right" in anarchy - anarchy is not politics.
What a load of complete bollocks. Maybe there is no left or right in your anarchy, but yours sounds like the anarchy of the frustrated middle-class student rather than the anarchy of the class conscious worker. Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism and most strains of anarchy except the fringe ones (primitivism, post-left, Individualist) are leftist and all strains are political. It doesn't matter whether the proponents of one stripe of anarchy are pretentious enough to declare it above politics or not, anarchy is and always will be political.

In anarchy, however, the more Athenian style of voluntary democracy is sure to rise and shine again.

It didn't shine in Athens, in sure as fuck won't be rising in any working class anarchy. [/b]
Yours sounds like the anarchist as a statist.

lombas

23rd September 2007, 00:28

The title you gave this, is a joke.

Too much honor, really.

:lol:

spartan

23rd September 2007, 00:30

lombas:
The title they gave this, is a joke.
Are you sure that you are'nt the joke?

Jazzratt

23rd September 2007, 00:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:26 pm
Yours sounds like the anarchist as a statist.
Christ you're thick. I doubt you understand the terms you're using. You strike me as one of the people who views any kind of decision making body as a kind of state power, whilst conveniently ignoring that the kind of anarchy you are promoting is simple chaos -which, of course, anarchy is not.

Do you know what a Syndicate is - as regards Anarcho-Syndicalist theory?

Do you know how anarchist society operates and enforces decisions ratified by worker mandate without recourse to state power?

Do you know anything, kid?

23rd September 2007, 00:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.

as are your political views.

Jazzratt

23rd September 2007, 00:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.
The comma you gave that sentence is superfluous.

Too much honor, really.

:lol:

What the fuck have you been smoking?

lombas

23rd September 2007, 00:35

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 22, 2007 11:32 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 22, 2007 11:32 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.
The comma you gave that sentence is superfluous.
[/b]
English is my fourth language.

That's not an excuse, I know - but it does provide a deeper understanding as to why, sometimes, I do not know all grammatical features of that wonderful language.

Jazzratt

23rd September 2007, 00:38

Originally posted by lombas+September 22, 2007 11:35 pm--> (lombas @ September 22, 2007 11:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:32 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.
The comma you gave that sentence is superfluous.

English is my fourth language. [/b]
Four (or more) languages and you still can't grasp the basics of Anarchy?

lombas

23rd September 2007, 00:45

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 22, 2007 11:38 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 22, 2007 11:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:35 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:32 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.
The comma you gave that sentence is superfluous.

English is my fourth language.
Four (or more) languages and you still can't grasp the basics of Anarchy? [/b]
Spanish is my fifth.

I think my problem is called "individualism".

But to return to your remarks: I certainly do not view "any kind of decision making body" as a state power.

Jazzratt

23rd September 2007, 00:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:45 pm
I think my problem is called "individualism".
I hear that class consciousness is good for that one.

But to return to your remarks: I certainly do not view "any kind of decision making body" as a state power.

Then why the (false) "statist" accusation?

lombas

23rd September 2007, 01:11

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 22, 2007 11:48 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 22, 2007 11:48 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:45 pm
I think my problem is called "individualism".
I hear that class consciousness is good for that one.[/b]

My background messed that up, it's too late. Good thing I have few principles.

But to return to your remarks: I certainly do not view "any kind of decision making body" as a state power.

Then why the (false) "statist" accusation?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, sorry. My response was to your following remark: "Maybe there is no left or right in your anarchy".

I thought your were implicating that there is "One Big Anarchy for us All to Follow, and Dare not Be an Exception or Get Spanked".

The Advent of Anarchy

23rd September 2007, 01:16

Originally posted by lombas+September 22, 2007 07:45 pm--> (lombas @ September 22, 2007 07:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:00 am

Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm
In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.
Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.
Next you'll be arguing for the freedom of private property.
Sure, why not? If that's how certain people feel it should be done, let them have it. [/b]
Never! Private property is the essence of capitalism! Destroy that abomidable freedom to oppress.

lombas

23rd September 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:16 am
Never! Private property is the essence of capitalism! Destroy that abomidable freedom to oppress.
I deeply understand, but it's about what the people, the communities want.

Damn, now I sound like some panarchist

Random Precision

23rd September 2007, 04:48

Your "ideas" are a joke. Private property is exploitation, no matter if people want it or not. Indeed, if we went along with "what the people want", we would never have a revolution. This is not a world in which what one person wants is as valid as what another person wants. Socialism, meaning the abolition of private property, is the only way.

Here's hoping you get restricted soon!

Eleftherios

23rd September 2007, 05:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:48 am
Here's hoping you get restricted soon!
But why? Even if his ideas may be a little confused, we all have the ability to learn more. I know that all of us here did not have a complete understanding of what socialism and revolutionary leftism are all about when we first got into them.

Idola Mentis

25th September 2007, 15:03

Originally posted by TragicClown+September 23, 2007 12:32 am--> (TragicClown @ September 23, 2007 12:32 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.

as are your political views. [/b]
Umm-kay. That clinches it. I'm off to usenet.

Nothing personal, Clown, but that is easily in the top ten stupidest mod actions I've seen in my time on any electronic communication network. There's limits to what I can be arsed to hang around and watch.

ÑóẊîöŉ

25th September 2007, 15:53

Jazzratt

25th September 2007, 19:55

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+September 25, 2007 02:03 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ September 25, 2007 02:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:32 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 11:28 pm
The title you gave this, is a joke.

as are your political views.
Umm-kay. That clinches it. I'm off to usenet.

Nothing personal, Clown, but that is easily in the top ten stupidest mod actions I've seen in my time on any electronic communication network. There's limits to what I can be arsed to hang around and watch. [/b]
As NoXion pointed out it was me that committed the (gasp of horror) heinous act of splitting this off topic discussion from a thread in discrimination and then had the sheer audacity to give it a humorous name. If this is " easily in the top ten stupidest mod actions I've seen in my time on any electronic communication network" then either you've not been using electronic communications networks for very long or you've never paid attention to what mods do.

But whatever, have fun on whatever circle-jerk corner of usenet you happen to lurk in.

Random Precision

25th September 2007, 22:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:02 am
But why? Even if his ideas may be a little confused, we all have the ability to learn more. I know that all of us here did not have a complete understanding of what socialism and revolutionary leftism are all about when we first got into them.
Well, that's one reason why we have an OI forum, isn't it? I think he can learn about communism and anarchism well enough even in restriction. Who even says he has to do it on this forum, anyway? But the fact remains that OI is where we send people who support private property, and so, at least for now, that is where he belongs.