Gunmen shoot policeman in Athens [Archive]

rebelmouse

5th January 2009, 18:51

I thought that anarchist make this shooting, but when I saw news that someone shot to the train, I understood that someone misuse riots to make shit.
first, someone shot bus full of cops. two bullets hit target.
I thought: excellent.
second, someone shot train, again two bullets shot target.
I thought: uuu, this is not done by anarchists.
third: someone shot cop, again 2 bullets successful.
I thought: good, even I don't think it is done by anarchists. I understood that someone misuse riot for himself. or secret agency found some crazy group who will make it in order to justify bigger repression. so, shot on the train was for me sign that something stink. but there is also possibility that some group of young people simply do what they want. in france happened that angry immigrants push people out of bus and then they burned bus. people are discriminated everywhere, so they anger/rage can be reflected against anything in society.
one thing is sure: no anarchist group published statement that they did these shooting. statements can be found usually at: directactiongr.blogspot.com

RGacky3

5th January 2009, 19:55

I can't believe the responses too this.

Almost all of them are about whether or not this will help the movement or whatever. This Cop perhaps had a wife, children, parents. Does it matter whether or not a Cop is a worker? Is a non-workers life any less valuble than a workers? A life isa life.

The ends does not justify the means, whether its usefull or not is'nt the issue, someone was killed, someone who did'nt desearve to die. Having a carrer as a cop, no matter what the reasons for it, no matter what the dilusions are, does not warrent a death sentance, not by a long shot.

I don't have sympathy for him. Maybe if he had died i would feel sorry for his family. He's gonna be fine though so they should shoot some more.

If thats your attitude then you should have no moral objection to a cop shooting a rioter.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

5th January 2009, 20:39

Thank you Gacky that sums up my feelings on the responses given.

this might make police more jumpy, leading to another shooting, leading to further destabilization. i hate how this jeopardizes everyone else who encounters a policemen aware of this.
:(:rolleyes:

Yeah, so don't start shooing unless you have lots of guns.

I thought that anarchist make this shooting, but when I saw news that someone shot to the train, I understood that someone misuse riots to make shit.

first, someone shot bus full of cops. two bullets hit target.
I thought: excellent.
second, someone shot train, again two bullets shot target.
I thought: uuu, this is not done by anarchists.
third: someone shot cop, again 2 bullets successful.
I thought: good, even I don't think it is done by anarchists. I understood that someone misuse riot for himself. or secret agency found some crazy group who will make it in order to justify bigger repression. so, shot on the train was for me sign that something stink. but there is also possibility that some group of young people simply do what they want.
one thing is sure: no anarchist group published statement that they did these shooting. statements can be found usually at: directactiongr.blogspot.com

I thought the same thing after a while. Initially I just thought it was because Euros can't shoot, and if a guy has an ak he's never shot he could be that bad. But it all depends on the situation, which I'm admittedly not very well versed on. If a guy is just using a whole clip firing full-auto taking potshots from several hundred meters away it's actually very likely that will be the result.

Of course, that doesn't disprove the conspiracy theory at all.

It's like feeling sympathy for a soldier who volunteered to be sent to Iraq to fight the "insurgents".

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that is anything like the situation at hand. You're comparing a guy trying to make sure ak's aren't going off in his country as opposed to a dude trying to impose that security in another country.

Sure, I feel sympathy for the person, but honestly, they are in a really shit job, and if they had any sense they would quit. How can a lesftist say this?

Um, hello, the demand for work in Greece is shit. This person, and many of the people working with the police, have families they have to worry about and their reality to pay for.

Mindtoaster

5th January 2009, 22:12

The ends does not justify the means, whether its usefull or not is'nt the issue, someone was killed, someone who did'nt desearve to die.

The means don't even have fucking ends when it comes to insurrectionism. Occupying buildings and shooting the cops if they storm it is totally justified, this is just pointless and will accomplish nothing.

RGacky3

5th January 2009, 22:26

The cops were not storming a building, nor were they attacking people, this was not self defence, even if it was, and killing the cop was absolutely nessesary, hav'nt such a low regard for human life, simply because of the guys occupation is really disturbing.

Even if this did accomplish something, its not justified.

The means don't even have fucking ends when it comes to insurrectionism.

Yes they do, the ends are ending oppression.

lombas

5th January 2009, 22:32

I feel sympathetic to the dozens of people innocently lifted from their bed in response to the shooting.

As for the cop, well, I feel sorry for him and his friends and family, but he'll live and should think twice about joining a police force which is one of the most repressive in Europe...

mykittyhasaboner

5th January 2009, 22:41

As for the cop, well, I feel sorry for him and his friends and family, but he'll live and should think twice about joining a police force which is one of the most repressive in Europe...

Good answer, I agree with this. I think it is reassuring that the rioters are willing to use lethal force when need be, because the police surely aren't scared to do it.

Forward Union

5th January 2009, 22:41

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7810972.stm

I feel sympathetic to the officer.

I have no problem with him dying. He was in uniform and a marked enemy combatant. He was not some run of the mill worker caught in a crossfire. He oficially identified himself as an enemy of the people, and was on active service. He was a legitimate target in the class war.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I hope he dies. I don't. But I have no sympathy at all.

The cops were not storming a building, nor were they attacking people

Not at that precise moment. But the police force is an instrument of the ruling class, a sort of internal military and the frontline against us. In war you don't need to wait to be shot at to shoot back.

I think it's an utterly liberal and spineless position to take. To believe the police should be left untouched unless they offend us in some way. No. They are our enemies and when we are in a position to, we should take the fight to them.

apathy maybe

5th January 2009, 23:15

I have no problem with him dying. He was in uniform and a marked enemy combatant. He was not some run of the mill worker caught in a crossfire. He oficially identified himself as an enemy of the people, and was on active service. He was a legitimate target in the class war.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I hope he dies. I don't. But I have no sympathy at all.

Not at that precise moment. But the police force is an instrument of the ruling class, a sort of internal military and the frontline against us. In war you don't need to wait to be shot at to shoot back.

I think it's an utterly liberal and spineless position to take. To believe the police should be left untouched unless they offend us in some way. No. They are our enemies and when we are in a position to, we should take the fight to them.
I basically (not 100%) agree with this position (though I'm not sure if the person identifies as an enemy of the people). The police are always a legitimate target.

Whether it does anything for "the cause" or not, is a different question. In this case, I'm unsure, and don't know enough about the situation in Greece to care to comment. However, considering you see it in the news linked to the death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos, people are likely to be sympathetic to the shooting. (E.g. "The attack followed weeks of protests after police shot a teenager dead." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7811792.stm )

Forward Union

5th January 2009, 23:38

I basically (not 100%) agree with this position (though I'm not sure if the person identifies as an enemy of the people). The police are always a legitimate target.

Of course he doesn't. In the same way most soldiers in Iraq probably don't consider themselves imperialist invaders, occupiers and murderers.

Whether it does anything for "the cause" or not, is a different question.

Sure. I don't think it was the best plan. But we were debating if it was "justified" morally. It was. Practically? maybe not. It was more likely a 'crime' of passion. Which I can understand given the context. And I use the word crime in its purely technical sense.

I take this view with Inssurectionist Anarchists actually. Their targets are legitimate. I don't mind that they blow up banks, police stations etc. I just think it's a terrible tactic that will get us nowhere.

#FF0000

5th January 2009, 23:53

Um, hello, the demand for work in Greece is shit. This person, and many of the people working with the police, have families they have to worry about and their reality to pay for.

That doesn't justify the existence of a mugger, and it doesn't justify someone taking up the badge and gun. I am sympathetic towards both as people but they are both very much in the wrong, especially the latter.

534634634265

6th January 2009, 00:37

im in the bushes, outside of a cops house, holding a twelve gauge
god isn't dead, but i'll get that bastard someday.
- johnny hobo & the freight trains

i agree with levellers standard i suppose. i just think actions like this (unplanned, non-goal oriented) make things more dangerous for other activists and insurrectionaries. impractical is a nice way of saying it.

Forward Union

6th January 2009, 00:52

i agree with levellers standard i suppose. i just think actions like this (unplanned, non-goal oriented) make things more dangerous for other activists and insurrectionaries. impractical is a nice way of saying it.

Right. I comdemn the action on practical grounds.

I'm simply saying that a Cop is a legitimate taget.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 02:24

I have no real comment on the usefulness of the shooting to the cause. Instead I'll say, I feel no sympathy for the police officer who was shot.

It's like feeling sympathy for a soldier who volunteered to be sent to Iraq to fight the "insurgents".

Sure, I feel sympathy for the person, but honestly, they are in a really shit job, and if they had any sense they would quit.

But yes, a lot more filth will be shot and honestly, I can't feel much sympathy for them when they know that it is a possibility. Especially when I consider that they are the enemy when it comes to so many things.
I hope they start shooting anarchists.

OneNamedNameLess

6th January 2009, 02:32

I hope they start shooting anarchists.

They already have. That is what triggered the riots.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 02:36

They already have. That is what triggered the riots.
Ah, but that was in self-defence and because the guy was under attack and panicked. But these thugs didn't kill that man in self-defence did they?

Mindtoaster

6th January 2009, 02:47

Right. I comdemn the action on practical grounds.

I'm simply saying that a Cop is a legitimate taget.

Agreed.

The shooting of a cop should only take place in self-defense or in a revolutionary situation in my opinion.

optimist

6th January 2009, 03:19

at first the cop is alive.at second the killer cop wasnt in self-defense,he was looking for it when he shot towards the youths with no provocation.the injured cop is a member of m.a.t., the greek riot police unit.they are responsible for deaths by beating in the past,and for brutallity against even little teenage girls in the recent demonstrations.if you watched videos of the demonstrations they are the ones dressed in khakis uniforms who spray tear gas in the faces of the people.the content of this tear gas is so dangerous that it is restricted in most e.u. countries,and even police unions are asking for stop using it because it is harmful for the other policemen in the area.the sister of the injured cop stated that her brother joined mat because of a 100euro bonus per month they take.so this guy knew what his job was going to be.spreading cancer to the air,beating people with the metal side of his police baton not the official rubber one,standard technic of mat.he could join the traffic police and not be a threat to his fellow citizens,but his choise was to be "an enemy of the people".since we are not in a revolutionary situation,i disagree with this kind of action ,shooting policemen,especially at this time,but iam not going to cry if he dies ,he chooses his side.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 03:38

optimist

6th January 2009, 03:52

in greece joining the army it is obligatory,there is no professional army.i myself serve for 2 years,so the soldiers are not cutoff of the rest of the people,believe me they wont bomb their own people.about the riot police ,even the rest of the policemen dont think highly about them.many years ago ,in a rock concert ,when mat were charging against us plain midlle aged policemen open a locked door helping us to escape saying"go away the scums are coming"because we were just rock kids ,the bad guys were their coworkers.

optimist

6th January 2009, 03:58

and since you are from ireland you know that if the people and the state,any state ,are enemies the state most of the times lose

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 04:33

and since you are from ireland you know that if the people and the state,any state ,are enemies the state most of the times lose
I also know that people like to make out that the people and the state are enemies when often they're not.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th January 2009, 05:18

Ah, but that was in self-defence and because the guy was under attack and panicked. But these thugs didn't kill that man in self-defence did they?

I feel sorry for the family of that Alexandros kid but he was a fucking idiot. Bullets beat stones dumbass.

Oh wait I can't say that...he was on "our" side and his life is therefore worth more :rolleyes:

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 05:20

I feel sorry for the family of that Alexandros kid but he was a fucking idiot. Bullets beat stones dumbass.

Oh wait I can't say that...he was on "our" side and his life is therefore worth more :rolleyes:
Yeah, it's only cool when we kill one of them, when they kill one of us it's murder.

#FF0000

6th January 2009, 05:53

Yeah, it's only cool when we kill one of them, when they kill one of us it's murder.

Yeah bro, because the citizenry, with their small arms and pitchforks, are definitely on the same level as the State, with their professional armies, tanks, bombs, and police forces.

Oh wait I can't say that...he was on "our" side and his life is therefore worth more :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of whose life is worth more. It's a matter of status. A 15 year old kid isn't employed by the state to enforce their laws. A police officer, on the other hand, is.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 06:05

Yeah bro, because the citizenry, with their small arms and pitchforks, are definitely on the same level as the State, with their professional armies, tanks, bombs, and police forces.
So the two AK-47 wielding thugs who assaulted the policeman battled their way through a fortress of tanks and bombs ya?

#FF0000

6th January 2009, 06:27

So the two AK-47 wielding thugs who assaulted the policeman battled their way through a fortress of tanks and bombs ya?

That isn't what I said at all.

I am saying that those two AK-47 wielding "thugs" are a part of a class that is exploited for its time and labor. Meanwhile, the police are a part of the machinery used to keep that class in its place. That's the perspective us communists and anarchists are coming from, here. We're not saying that it's a good thing that someone was killed (not all of us, anyway), but we're saying that, like TLS put it, a cop is a legit target.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 07:02

ca
That isn't what I said at all.

I am saying that those two AK-47 wielding "thugs" are a part of a class that is exploited for its time and labor. Meanwhile, the police are a part of the machinery used to keep that class in its place. That's the perspective us communists and anarchists are coming from, here. We're not saying that it's a good thing that someone was killed (not all of us, anyway), but we're saying that, like TLS put it, a cop is a legit target.
I disagree. This is not class war. There is no major armed conflict between the workers and the state right now; there were riots, as there often are in peacetime, but that does not mean war. If there is really a war between the workers and the state then the workers should surely be just as legitimate a target for attacks as these policemen? If not all workers, then certainly all rioters, socialists and anarchists.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th January 2009, 08:38

It's not a matter of whose life is worth more. It's a matter of status. A 15 year old kid isn't employed by the state to enforce their laws. A police officer, on the other hand, is.

Yeah, first of all, I didn't mean to sound evil. I just think it was a tad weird how after the cop shot the kid he was accused on here of being evil and a fascist and everything, and then when one some rioter pulls out an ak and blasts a cop the reaction from some is "Kill 'em All!" in tone if not literally. At the least, no sympathy shown.

Let me ask, I'm a cop and I see a dude aim a gun at my partner. Am I justified in shooting the person?

Pogue

6th January 2009, 08:48

Ah, but that was in self-defence and because the guy was under attack and panicked. But these thugs didn't kill that man in self-defence did they?

I'm sure you know this but it was because the cop was a fascist psycho prick, and the guy he shot was not threatening him at all. It wasn't self defense it was murder.

#FF0000

6th January 2009, 09:28

ca
I disagree. This is not class war. There is no major armed conflict between the workers and the state right now; there were riots, as there often are in peacetime, but that does not mean war. If there is really a war between the workers and the state then the workers should surely be just as legitimate a target for attacks as these policemen? If not all workers, then certainly all rioters, socialists and anarchists.

What, did you just totally forget everything you knew about Marxism and Leftism when you restricted yourself? Class struggle isn't something that happens when people are out in the streets, starting a revolution. It's constant in capitalist society. Layoffs and taking away benefits are just as much acts of class war against the working class as gunning down a union leader is. Just think of the former as "low-intensity" class war, I suppose.

Let me ask, I'm a cop and I see a dude aim a gun at my partner. Am I justified in shooting the person?

See, this is a pretty difficult question for me to answer. My response would be "absolutely not, since your existence as a cop is unjustifiable in the first place".

That said, it's completely understandable for a cop to act that way.

The way I think of it is like this. If you were an English soldier, and England invaded Latvia or something out of the blue just as a land-grab, would you be justified in shooting a Latvian Insurgent that aimed a gun at you? No, because you shouldn't be in Latvia with your gun in the first place.

I mean, sure, it isn't as if you as an individual made a choice to go to Latvia, but you decided to be an English soldier, and but needing a job, and then "just following orders" isn't enough to justify it.

danyboy27

6th January 2009, 14:11

after all, cops aint that necessary, i mean, we can take care of ourselves, in a communist world everybody would fallow the laws and there would be no need at all for laws enforcement. if we caught a rapist or a killer, we should let him free, so he can learn from hsis mistake by monitoring kindergarden :D

Pirate Utopian

6th January 2009, 14:37

Copkiller!
I know your mama's grievin' (fuck her!)
But tonight we get even!

So yeah. It really helps fuck all but I dont feel any sympathy at all for the cop that got shot.

butterfly

6th January 2009, 15:06

To the OP,
When a death is widely acknowledged by the revolutionary left it is often symbolic of either a victory or a loss for class struggle.

If your logic was applied without class analysis why not mourn the countless and needless death of innocent lives that occurs on a daily basis?
Because your life would be miserable.

As a member of an armed force, a mechanism used by the state to oppress the working class, this mans death was a symbolic victory for a movement that wishes to disarm the state for the good of the majority.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 16:17

What, did you just totally forget everything you knew about Marxism and Leftism when you restricted yourself? Class struggle isn't something that happens when people are out in the streets, starting a revolution. It's constant in capitalist society. Layoffs and taking away benefits are just as much acts of class war against the working class as gunning down a union leader is. Just think of the former as "low-intensity" class war, I suppose.

So class struggle is not something that takes place in a revolutionary context. But leftists acknowledge, surely, that a revolution is inevitable? So we must be able to distinguish this constant class struggle from something more direct, let's call it class war. A struggle is not a war, a struggle is not necessarily military or even violent in nature. Saying that the working class is struggling is all well and good but when you start talking about policemen as being "legitimate targets" for armed assault then you take it onto the next level, you make it a war, and wars have two sides.

That's the way it is IMO. Either they are enemy combatants, or they are not enemy combatants and to kill them is murder and unjust. You seem to be meandering in and out of "well there is a class war - but there's not a class war" but murder can't be shrugged off that easily (I am aware this man was not killed but he could well have been and to say it's okay to spray him with bullets is to say it's okay to kill him). When you orphan a man's children and widow his wife you had damned well better have a good reason.

I think it's absurd to suggest that we are in this "low intensity war" where one side consists of legitimate combatant forces/targets but the other side--the agressor in the conflict--is out of bounds no matter what.

534634634265

6th January 2009, 17:19

Well what I'm saying is that you people are so quick to call this person an "enemy", in what you are making out to be a war between the anarchists and the police, in order to play down this assault. And what I'm saying is that if it's a war then the State and the police and the army should act like it's a war.

i think you need to get off this trip about how its just anarchists and just cops. the protests in greece involve children as young as 13 and 14 demonstrating peacefully. this is workers groups, leftists, reformists, centrists, everyone.

also, there is a never-ending war of occupation between the people and the state. what do you think police are? they are an organ of oppression in place to prevent people acting in ways that differ from the current regime in power. the army rarely gets involved, and thats only in situations where the police and SWAT forces feel they are unable to adequately handle the confrontation. in other words, when it looks like things might be a fair fight, the state can summon a highly advanced, well trained army to further unbalance the conflict in their (the states) favor.

Chances are the assailants are going to be arrested and then whinge about police brutality because their cuffs are too tight or some shit like that. If this was really the war you claim it is they could expect to wake up in burning napalm one day, or shot dead next time they walk down the street. Or maybe their houses will be bombed eh?

glad to see your many encounters with the police providing you with lots of experience in this situation, eh? think about any occupying force. it is in their best interests not to firebomb the populace, but to convince them that being occupied is in the peoples best interests. the army/police would likely be more than willing to use such force if they thought it was called for. you've taken a reasonable arguement to such an extreme that its unlikely anyone can talk about it legitimately now.

RGacky3

6th January 2009, 17:24

but his choise was to be "an enemy of the people".

Do you think a cop see's himself as an "enemy of the people?" Or even realizes his role in class struggle?

When a death is widely acknowledged by the revolutionary left it is often symbolic of either a victory or a loss for class struggle.

Sounds like Stalin speaking.

I know your mama's grievin' (fuck her!)
But tonight we get even!

I hope you have a kid, or a family member who becomes a cop or a soldier, and gest shot, see if your attitude "Fuck his grievin mother" is the same.

I'm sure you know this but it was because the cop was a fascist psycho prick, and the guy he shot was not threatening him at all. It wasn't self defense it was murder.

Yeah, and that cop should have to answer for what he did, but not just any cop.

I am saying that those two AK-47 wielding "thugs" are a part of a class that is exploited for its time and labor. Meanwhile, the police are a part of the machinery used to keep that class in its place. That's the perspective us communists and anarchists are coming from, here. We're not saying that it's a good thing that someone was killed (not all of us, anyway), but we're saying that, like TLS put it, a cop is a legit target.

First of all, the cop is also exploited for his time and labor (only for a different purpose).

Second class war is'nt about killing people, it is'nt about targets, its about ending oppression, and that does'nt have to be done by killing people, it should'nt be done by killing people. NO ONE is a legit target unless he's directly threatening the life of someone.

Class war is about the oppressed people ending their oppression, not killing people.

Whats most disturbing is'nt that the murder was unjustified, whats most disturbing is the blatent disregard for life simply because of the persons proffession (yeah he did'nt die but the disregard is there), like somehow a persons value in life is his relationship to the revolution, if life has value then it has value, no matter what, if it does'nt have value then don't complain when the injustices of Capitalism kills of millions of children, or when the United States bombs cities killing hundreds, because life does'nt have value.

The value of life IS NOT determined by what someone does for a living, or what his relationship is to the revolution, hell part of the reason we are revolutionaries is because we consider everyones life to be valuble, don't be hipocrites.

Djehuti

6th January 2009, 17:44

“Was the riot cop shooting orchestrated by the state?”

Rough translation of a posting on Athens indymedia, the day after a riot cop was shot (http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2009/01/05/37-0513-riot-cop-shot-in-eksarhia-athens-tens-of-arrests-in-the-area/) in Eksarhia, Athens. The text below is important as it seems to reflect a sentiment shared with the majority of the people in the anarchist, and the wider antagonist social movement in the country: The greek state seems to be pulling out some of its oldest and dirtiest tricks in order to go, once again, on the offensive. Luckily, our movement does have one of the most valuable assets - collective memory. In the US they called it COINTELPRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO), in Italy it was the strategy of tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension), over here it is lonely gunmen shooting from (but really: shooting at) the very spaces we are trying to defend. We don’t forget, we don’t forgive, we won’t be intimidated…
–
On the dawn of 5/1/08, at around 3 a.m, a riot police unit was shot at while guarding the ministry of culture in the Eksarhia district of Athens. They speak of more than 20 bullet shells and a hand grenade. The cop injured, they say, was saved only thanks to his mobile phone, which slowed down the bullet that hit him in the chest.
Our initial thought is that any individual that is part of our movement, no matter how enraged or in support of urban guerilla tactics they might be, would not chose the area of Eksarhia (literally under police occupation for the past few days) in order to launch an attack of this kind and manage to escape safely.
Therefore, we cannot consider coincidental the fact that mass media, politicians and their lackeys have been building up an atmosphere where some dynamic revenge action against the cops was imminent. We cannot rule out, of course, the possibility that such incidents could happen - but we are not foolish enough to believe that they would take place in Eksarhia, or in the case of the earlier incident (-the shooting against the police van a few days earlier - trans.) in the university campus of Zografou.
The state, via its mouthpiece media was preparing public opinion for some ‘imminent’ action against the police. The choice of the place of the attack (the ministry of culture in Eksarhia) somehow spoiled their recipe: An attack in such a heavily surveilled urban area clearly points at attackers that can only be directly linked to the state itself.
It goes without saying that these people would have no hesitation whatsoever to shoot one of their own - there’s no need for a second thought on that: Life means nothing to them.
Their action shows that they are trying to neutralise the climate for the shooting, in cold blood, of Alexis Grigoropoulos, and to create once again some sympathy for the police - who at the moment are spat at on the streets by pretty much everyone for anything they do. They are trying to create, at the same time, an atmosphere of violence and terrorism for all the rest who resist in any possible way.
The choice of Eksarhia, an area that no armed revolutionary group would ever chose under the given circumstances, builds all the necessary associations in the mind of the society; it frees the hands of cops and judges for violence and convictions against the social whole… this always in the face of the pending unemployment and financial crises.
Already there have been 75 detentions, many police attacks against residents and passers-by in Eksarhia, while there is also information on house raids - how handy for them.
There are strange days coming; the government has lost control a while ago and is now launching a full-scale violence, some violence in which it has a near-monopoly.
A disproportionate violence that faces stones and molotovs and responds with tons of chemical gases, bullets (plastic and regular), attacks of the wild revolted against fully equipped state units with military training.
The pre-planned right turn of the government (not that it wasn’t right-wing already, but having seen its conservative core moving to the far-right, it further hardens its rhetoric and repression tactics) can only be confronted with mass and unitary demonstrations and events against state terror. With answers and clashes on the streets; with mass barricades. With a political word that will talk of the people and their needs; of how they are masters of themselves, how they need to move away from the authoritarian leadership of political parties which ignore the pressing demand for liberation from the confines of the state, of homelands and capitalism.
Without rushed-up actions yet with our gaze in the immediate future, we need to produce ideas and proposals through our public assemblies so that the self-organisation of the people from below can become visible, viable and possible -precisely in the ways many of us witnessed during the days of the December revolt.
There is no other way - else, they’ll take us down, one after the other.
As they’ve proved one more time, they are ruthless.

http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2009/01/05/was-the-riot-cop-shooting-orchestrated-by-the-state/

Pogue

6th January 2009, 17:50

Nice.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 17:50

glad to see your many encounters with the police providing you with lots of experience in this situation, eh? think about any occupying force. it is in their best interests not to firebomb the populace, but to convince them that being occupied is in the peoples best interests. the army/police would likely be more than willing to use such force if they thought it was called for. you've taken a reasonable arguement to such an extreme that its unlikely anyone can talk about it legitimately now.
No I haven't, you have cherry-picked where I was being most hyperbolic. I have set out the argument in more reasonable terms.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 17:53

“Was the riot cop shooting orchestrated by the state?”

[snip article]

So they're saying that because the shooting was a stupid idea that it must have been carried out by the state. Well shooting the 15 year old was a stupid idea. Does that mean it was carried out by anarchists?

I highly doubt they have any proof to support their bizarre conspiracy theories. This is bordering on Illuminati-style stuff now.

#FF0000

6th January 2009, 17:55

So class struggle is not something that takes place in a revolutionary context. But leftists acknowledge, surely, that a revolution is inevitable?

No.

I think it's absurd to suggest that we are in this "low intensity war" where one side consists of legitimate combatant forces/targets but the other side--the agressor in the conflict--is out of bounds no matter what.

They're out of bounds no matter what because they shouldn't even exist as they do. Think of it, as Crackedlogic said, as an occupying force. When Germany occupied France, for instance. Would you say that the occupying German forces would be out of bounds no matter what they did to the people in France? I would, because they have no right to even be there, so they have no right to act

First of all, the cop is also exploited for his time and labor (only for a different purpose).

Classes are not only defined by their relationship with the means of production, but also by their relationship with others. Cops are pretty much the armed guards of the state, which itself defend bourgeois interests. Cops aren't proletarians, though they aren't anywhere near wealthy.

Qwerty Dvorak

6th January 2009, 18:03

They're out of bounds no matter what because they shouldn't even exist as they do. Think of it, as Crackedlogic said, as an occupying force. When Germany occupied France, for instance. Would you say that the occupying German forces would be out of bounds no matter what they did to the people in France? I would, because they have no right to even be there, so they have no right to act

I don't mean out of bounds as in exempt from guilt. I mean out of bounds for attack. The workers are apparently one side in this war, and yet none of them are legitimate targets. The state is the other side, and all its agents seem to be legitimate targets.

Pogue

6th January 2009, 18:06

I don't mean out of bounds as in exempt from guilt. I mean out of bounds for attack. The workers are apparently one side in this war, and yet none of them are legitimate targets. The state is the other side, and all its agents seem to be legitimate targets.

When we consider who is the instigator of the violence in class society, we find its the bourgeoisie an its state. They always attack us - we respond. They are the targets, we are the victims - they have no right or reaosn to attack us, we fight them to liberate and save ourselves.

#FF0000

6th January 2009, 18:21

I don't mean out of bounds as in exempt from guilt. I mean out of bounds for attack. The workers are apparently one side in this war, and yet none of them are legitimate targets. The state is the other side, and all its agents seem to be legitimate targets.

Ah right. I see what you're saying. As H-L-V-S said, though, we aren't the initiators of violence. We just respond to it.

RGacky3

6th January 2009, 18:37

Classes are not only defined by their relationship with the means of production, but also by their relationship with others. Cops are pretty much the armed guards of the state, which itself defend bourgeois interests. Cops aren't proletarians, though they aren't anywhere near wealthy.

The definition of proletarian or working class is that you sell your labor for a wage, thats what defines class, you might define it differently but thats something else. Either way, class does'nt determine value of life.

cop an Attitude

6th January 2009, 19:15

although the cop most likly didnt realize his role or thought of himself as "maintaining the peace from rioters" I have no sympathy for him. Just becasue someone may have been suckered into their position does not make it out of their control. I'm sure he's aware of what his job really is, hindering the people from expressing their voice. Who knows, this all might be for the best, he might quit after getting shot at.

Djehuti

6th January 2009, 20:00

So they're saying that because the shooting was a stupid idea that it must have been carried out by the state.

What would we benefit from increased repression? Is there anything that speaks for that revolutionaries shot the cop? Sure, that could very well be the case, but it is not very convincing.

I highly doubt they have any proof to support their bizarre conspiracy theories. This is bordering on Illuminati-style stuff now.

No, it does not. It is not uncommon for states to manufacture these kind of things in situations like these, and understand that Greece was a dictatorship not very long ago. The USA have killed their own and blame others in modern times (to justify increased repression), we now that. Italy has to, we also now that. The same goes for Russia, France and various other democracies.

Sure, most conspiracy theories are pure bullshit with no or very little connection to reality, but conspiracies does exist and democratic states have been known to kill their own citzens. It is uncommon, but not extremly uncommon.

It is definitly a valid theory that powerful elements within the greek state orchestrated this attack.

StalinFanboy

6th January 2009, 20:36

So they're saying that because the shooting was a stupid idea that it must have been carried out by the state. Well shooting the 15 year old was a stupid idea. Does that mean it was carried out by anarchists?

Ummm nice logic there. Oh wait, just kidding.

They're not saying that it was state orchestrated because it was a "stupid idea." They're saying it was state orchestrated because of the situation they are facing in Eksarhia (spelling?) regarding the strong police presence.

DÃ³chas

6th January 2009, 20:43

i suppose they were trying to put the old "eye for an eye" saying into practice...pity they failed

Pirate Utopian

6th January 2009, 20:50

.I hope you have a kid, or a family member who becomes a cop or a soldier, and gest shot, see if your attitude "Fuck his grievin mother" is the same.
:laugh: It's from a song.
And I'd laugh my ass off. :lol:

#FF0000

6th January 2009, 21:20

The definition of proletarian or working class is that you sell your labor for a wage, thats what defines class, you might define it differently but thats something else. Either way, class does'nt determine value of life.

I will just quote Nothing Human is Alien from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cops-and-security-t63126/index.html?t=63126):

A proletarian (not to "me," but objectively) is "(1) synonymous with “modern working class”, (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves “piecemeal” as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else, (6) although the term “labourers” carries the connotation of manual labour, elsewhere Marx makes it clear that the labourer with the head is as much a proletarian as the labourer with the hand, and finally (7) the proletariat is a class." - Source.
(http://marx.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm)
Security guards, like police and prison guards, do not expand capital, they "service the personal or administrative needs of capitalists."

I can also quote bcbm from the same thread:

Police, etc may fit the general criteria for being "working class," but they are class traitors as they defend the bourgeoisie against their own, therefore rejecting their own class position to serve as lapdogs of our enemies. That makes their "class" irrelevant for our purposes. They side with and actively defend our enemies, the end.

But, I agree with you that the value of someone's life doesn't come from their class. But I've always sort of seen this sort of violence as something that just happens in rough times.

RGacky3

6th January 2009, 22:07

I'm sure he's aware of what his job really is, hindering the people from expressing their voice.

I'm betting he does'nt, the same way soldiers in Iraq probably think they are liberating the country.

And I'd laugh my ass off.

Really? In that case your simply an asshole. But 100% correct to quote that song.

i suppose they were trying to put the old "eye for an eye" saying into practice...pity they failed

Its not an eye for an eye because that was'nt the guy that shot the kid. That would be like if a black man kills a white person, and then in revenge people just go out looking to kill any black man.

revolution inaction

6th January 2009, 22:34

RGacky3

6th January 2009, 23:29

black people are not a group that's sole purpose is to protect the state.

Yeah so? That doesn't mean you can punish one man for another mans crime, people should be treated as individuals.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

7th January 2009, 00:04

The way I think of it is like this. If you were an English soldier, and England invaded Latvia or something out of the blue just as a land-grab, would you be justified in shooting a Latvian Insurgent that aimed a gun at you? No, because you shouldn't be in Latvia with your gun in the first place.

I mean, sure, it isn't as if you as an individual made a choice to go to Latvia, but you decided to be an English soldier, and but needing a job, and then "just following orders" isn't enough to justify it.

I would completely understand the Latvian in this case, he has every right to defend his property. But this is a case of someone being paid to keep their own home from going to shit, and the way the rioters have thus far acted isn't exactly a constructive alternative.

although the cop most likly didnt realize his role or thought of himself as "maintaining the peace from rioters" I have no sympathy for him. Just becasue someone may have been suckered into their position does not make it out of their control. I'm sure he's aware of what his job really is, hindering the people from expressing their voice. Who knows, this all might be for the best, he might quit after getting shot at.

Since when has burning cities been a legitimate way of "voicing opinion?"

Are bullets now included under Free Speech?

Maybe the cop has learned to carry an automatic weapon from now on.

534634634265

7th January 2009, 00:04

I don't mean out of bounds as in exempt from guilt. I mean out of bounds for attack. The workers are apparently one side in this war, and yet none of them are legitimate targets. The state is the other side, and all its agents seem to be legitimate targets.

I would say yes, most agents of the state ARE legitimate targets. and yes, most workers are NOT legitimate. this is the nature of asymetrical warfare. while the state possesses the advantages of technology, training, and mainstream support, we possess all the advantages of a guerilla force striking the shadows. or striking from the midst of civilians, as Hamas is accused of doing in the israeli-palestinian conflict.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

7th January 2009, 00:12

I would say yes, most agents of the state ARE legitimate targets. and yes, most workers are NOT legitimate. this is the nature of asymetrical warfare. while the state possesses the advantages of technology, training, and mainstream support, we possess all the advantages of a guerilla force striking the shadows. or striking from the midst of civilians, as Hamas is accused of doing in the israeli-palestinian conflict.

If you model any type warfare off of Hamas you got problems. What a great job they're doing of defending their people.

Anyway, the biggest advantage I see is that the agitators have the ability to cry about their losses afterward. It's understood that cops die but when this thug gets popped it'll be a huge tragedy. If the cops went to an agitators house and occupied it and didn't let the agitator return again it'd be a huge tragedy. Asymetrical indeed.

Plagueround

7th January 2009, 01:59

Anyway, the biggest advantage I see is that the agitators have the ability to cry about their losses afterward. It's understood that cops die but when this thug gets popped it'll be a huge tragedy. If the cops went to an agitators house and occupied it and didn't let the agitator return again it'd be a huge tragedy. Asymetrical indeed.

If you wear a badge and carry out acts of brutality daily, you're exempt from most people's criticism because you're "just doing your job"...but if you fight back, you're a "thug" because you don't have a nicely pressed uniform. Asymmetrical indeed.

I think it needs to be made clear. Anyone who thinks this fight was started by Anarchists needs to go learn a bit about Greek history.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

7th January 2009, 03:25

If you wear a badge and carry out acts of brutality daily, you're exempt from most people's criticism because you're "just doing your job"...but if you fight back, you're a "thug" because you don't have a nicely pressed uniform. Asymmetrical indeed.

You're also going to be investigated if you misuse that power, like the guy who shot the kid. This thug was able to sulk back into the crowd, however.

I think it needs to be made clear. Anyone who thinks this fight was started by Anarchists needs to go learn a bit about Greek history.

:confused: How is Greek history relevant? Yes, they had a dictatorship a while back, but how does that apply to the current situation?

They've gone from allowing no free expression to their cities being burned by rioters with no real response. Both are on the wrong ends of the spectrum and just make life more miserable for the average person.

God I hope the IMF, World Bank, or any other group using my taxes doesn't give Greece any money. If the EU does that's the Euros money to waste.

redguard2009

7th January 2009, 05:24

You're also going to be investigated if you misuse that power,

Yeah, you'll be investigated. Of course, being investigated means absolutely nothing. From police in Harlem to soldiers in Iraq, the vast majority of those responsible for the deaths of innocent people get off scott free, or with laughable wrist-slapping convictions. Take the recent case of Sean Bell, for instance. Four police officers shot him 50 times, killing him and wounding several others who were with him -- he and his companions were unarmed and fully compliant. The police officers were found not guilty of any wrong-doing. Of course, there is the possibility that it was all just a tragic mistake -- but if those cops were civilians (and worse, black), no amount of justification would have saved them. At the very least they would have been convicted of manslaughter and given multi-year sentences for the death, just as we'd expect from anyone who accidently, but preventably, ends the life of another person.

The fact is that police are always given the benefit of the doubt. They are expected to be the only people in our society who fully understand the consequences of using deadly force and therefore any incident which involves a police officer using deadly force is by default assumed to be justified, directly or indirectly.

A few months ago here a young unarmed kid was shot dead by police which sparked several riots amongst minority communities. Unfortunately, no police were shot. The officers involved were found to have used appropriate force -- two full-grown, trained officers were justifed in using guns to kill a 17 year old boy (who was quite scraggly).

It's just sad that more police aren't shot. At this rate, the only way we're going to get proper treatment from the Police is if they fear our vengeance at their wrongdoings. I'd love to see an "incident" in which a civilian guns down a cop and claims self-defense.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

7th January 2009, 06:49

A few months ago here a young unarmed kid was shot dead by police which sparked several riots amongst minority communities. Unfortunately, no police were shot. The officers involved were found to have used appropriate force -- two full-grown, trained officers were justifed in using guns to kill a 17 year old boy (who was quite scraggly).

Was he armed?

Anyway, yes, riots happen every so often. You'd think by now people would realize they accomplish jack-shit.

It's just sad that more police aren't shot. At this rate, the only way we're going to get proper treatment from the Police is if they fear our vengeance at their wrongdoings. I'd love to see an "incident" in which a civilian guns down a cop and claims self-defense.

Or you could not shoot a cop and go to law school.

Then provoke them :)

TheCultofAbeLincoln

7th January 2009, 06:51

I would say yes, most agents of the state ARE legitimate targets.

When I was in school there were certain teachers who would hurt the children in anyway they could.

redguard2009

7th January 2009, 13:40

Was he armed?

A few months ago here a young unarmed kid was shot dead...

Also, to elaborate, this kid had no criminal record, got good grades, etc, was a "model" teenager.

Or you could not shoot a cop and go to law school.

What does going to law school have to do with anything? Do you think any deeper knowledge of the system of law will challenge the status quo of the impunity of police?

Actually, this reminds me of a case I heard of from within the past few years. During some sort of protest (I don't remember what it was about) a lawyer, a woman in her 50s, was taking part, holding a sign. Riot police opened fire on her with pellet guns and hit her in the forehead, and afterwards video leaked out of the riot police bragging about it during their debriefing.

Of course, under any other circumstances, if the firer had not been a police officer and had shot a woman in the head with a pellet gun they'd be charged with aggravated assault with a weapon and probably face several years in jail (especially if they are black). I've been assaulted by the police on several occasions, including the use of a Police cruiser (which would count as assault with a deadly weapon for any non-police officer). I've even had a group of police come up behind me and try to shove me to the ground (not to arrest me -- they literally came up behind me and shoved me and kept walking) and then provoke me into attacking them like they were some high school gang looking for a fight. And we both know if I'd answered their request I'd have been in jail for several months, whether or not any charges were actually stuck (on the contrary, during any investigation into their wrongdoing, police officers are usually given paid leave).

Anyway, yes, riots happen every so often. You'd think by now people would realize they accomplish jack-shit.

95% of the time, you're right. But a riot is not just about accomplishing something directly. Though ultimately many people who take part in riots and protests have romanticized notions of their actions sparking a prairie fire which will sweep the world and bring about global change, the fact of the matter is that even though a riot or other protest will likely not accomplish very much, it is still a legitimate expression of public discontent and anger, which has real, solid roots and causes.

Qwerty Dvorak

8th January 2009, 12:42

:confused: How is Greek history relevant? Yes, they had a dictatorship a while back, but how does that apply to the current situation?

It was the Spartans wot done it!

Plagueround

9th January 2009, 18:24

It was the Spartans wot done it!

Well, if you go that far back you'll probably have done a bit more research than I intended...

In all seriousness though, if you do a 5 minute search and read up on the social problems and political climate of Greece, I'd have a hard time understanding how anyone could think anarchists started this. Also, I don't know how one could think having a dictatorship isn't fresh in people's minds and still affects them.

DÃ³chas

9th January 2009, 18:31

Its not an eye for an eye because that was'nt the guy that shot the kid. That would be like if a black man kills a white person, and then in revenge people just go out looking to kill any black man.

not really...and i dont think they were going out looking for the actual police officer that killed alexandros just like the police officers that killed alexandros didnt go looking for him. they just wanted to make it even by killing any old police officer

RGacky3

9th January 2009, 18:45

they just wanted to make it even by killing any old police officer

Well then its not an eye for an eye, its simply a senseless murder. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

DÃ³chas

9th January 2009, 18:49

its simply a senseless murder

not really they didnt kill anyone like i said tried but failed

TheCultofAbeLincoln

9th January 2009, 19:41

Also, I don't know how one could think having a dictatorship isn't fresh in people's minds and still affects them.

While I still don't agree, that's a very good point.

What does going to law school have to do with anything? Do you think any deeper knowledge of the system of law will challenge the status quo of the impunity of police?What do you think shooting a cop would do? All that would bring about is more kevlar and bigger bullets for them and more scrutiny of the general populace.

If you go to law school you could represent one of thousands of poor people who as we speak are being convicted mainly because the public lawyer they were given doesn't give a shit. Also, you could launch cases investigating the actions of the police and take it to court.

It's not about changing the status quo, if that is your only goal your delusional, but about helping scores of people. Besides, doing this could easily bring change on its own.

I would say the effect of the Black Panthers arming themselves, then going out with a copy of the CA penal code and making sure that anytime a police officer held somebody they understood that if they did anything wrong they were going to be taken into sued, had a much greater effect on the cops than the riots happening there now will.

Seriously, knowing your rights is the best damn thing you can do for yourself.

Invincible Summer

10th January 2009, 00:22

What do you think shooting a cop would do? All that would bring about is more kevlar and bigger bullets for them and more scrutiny of the general populace.

This is probably true.

Therefore, the more effective form of direct action would've been blowing up the police station.

I would say the effect of the Black Panthers arming themselves, then going out with a copy of the CA penal code and making sure that anytime a police officer held somebody they understood that if they did anything wrong they were going to be taken into sued, had a much greater effect on the cops than the riots happening there now will.

Seriously, knowing your rights is the best damn thing you can do for yourself.

The problem with the judicial system is that it is an organ of the State. You can't sue the entire police force of the USA to bankruptcy, because then even if you did, you'd still have the other organs of the State.

The problem isn't how to co-exist with the oppressive nature of the State, but how to eliminate the oppressive State completely.

RGacky3

12th January 2009, 18:24

Therefore, the more effective form of direct action would've been blowing up the police station.

yep, thats excactly what the masses want, thats exactly whats going to help the people stop their oppression, more senseless murder that will result in martial law.

The problem isn't how to co-exist with the oppressive nature of the State, but how to eliminate the oppressive State completely.

Yeah, and senselss murder is'nt going to do that, and even if it does it will leave in control people who are willing to murder senselessly.

Invincible Summer

16th January 2009, 11:32

yep, thats excactly what the masses want, thats exactly whats going to help the people stop their oppression, more senseless murder that will result in martial law.

Yeah, and senselss murder is'nt going to do that, and even if it does it will leave in control people who are willing to murder senselessly.

My suggestion to "blow up the police station" was partially exaggeration. My point is that cutting off one finger won't stop people from being hurt - you have to cut off the whole arm. This is not necessarily through violence.

Black Sheep

16th January 2009, 13:22

I have made some comments here about the situation in Greece. fixed link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1331599&postcount=11

This shooting was a provocation act.I do feel somewhat sorry for the officer (he is 21 ffs), because his life is being jeopardized by the ruling class to create reasons to enforce oppression and crushing on the workers' struggle.

Anyway,it was a provocation act, jsut like the shooting of the cops' bus, and the shooting of the student.REICHSTAG FIRES

16th January 2009, 13:36

I have made some comments here about the situation in Greece.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1331599&postcount=11 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1331599&postcount=11)

This shooting was a provocation act.I do feel somewhat sorry for the officer (he is 21 ffs), because his life is being jeopardized by the ruling class to create reasons to enforce oppression and crushing on the workers' struggle.

Anyway,it was a provocation act, jsut like the shooting of the cops' bus, and the shooting of the student.REICHSTAG FIRES

your link doesnt working!;)

redguard2009

16th January 2009, 18:04

yep, thats excactly what the masses want, thats exactly whats going to help the people stop their oppression, more senseless murder that will result in martial law.

baaaw baww baww, stop it with the sensationalist garbage. we can't reject anything simply because it might be "hard". change is not going to be "easy". there will be martial law, guns, bullets, fires, death.

RGacky3

16th January 2009, 18:52

we can't reject anything simply because it might be "hard". change is not going to be "easy". there will be martial law, guns, bullets, fires, death.

Thats not why I'm regecting it, I'm regecting it because its unjustified murder.

Jazzratt

16th January 2009, 19:24

Thats not why I'm regecting it, I'm regecting it because its unjustified murder.

It was a cop. What's to justify?

Labor Shall Rule

16th January 2009, 20:29

How sad.

The revolutionary “tactic” of murdering officers is applicable wherever mass police violence is applicable. It's sad that it's 'justified' to throw stones, iron bars, and slabs at them, but when you pick up an automatic weapon and fire it in their direction, it becomes a blood thirsty attack. Has everyone forgotten about why the riots are erupting in the first place? Has anyone outside of Greece noticed the police response? A fucking class war is going on right now, people!

RGacky3

16th January 2009, 20:54

It was a cop. What's to justify?

His Murder, he had'nt hurt anyone, and to lump all cops together is rediculous, doing that absoolutely justifies cops fireing on a crowd when a molotov cocktail goes out. I don't thinkg thats justified, either way.

We arn't fighting a war against the cops, we are fighting it against the system, against Capitalism, against the State.

Cops generally join to force under the premis that their job is to protect the people, they may be used for other purposes, but THEY are not the bad people.

If your defending yourself or someone else its justified, but killing a cop, BECAUSE he's a cop, theres no excuse for that. If there is, its also an excuse for the government to kill an anarchist, because he is an anarchist, based on the fact that anarchists in the past have killed people, the government can assume all will kill people. We have to be consistant.

Bud Struggle

16th January 2009, 21:09

It was a cop. What's to justify?

That's pretty nasty.

Black Sheep

17th January 2009, 23:00

His Murder, he had'nt hurt anyone, and to lump all cops together is rediculous, doing that absoolutely justifies cops fireing on a crowd when a molotov cocktail goes out. I don't thinkg thats justified, either way.

WTF, the guy is not dead, but in the ER..

Labor Shall Rule

17th January 2009, 23:11

It's 'nasty', but what if cops set up road blocks in your neighborhood and randomly fire at civilians? Would you avoid confronting them if they attack you and your family?

I'd agree that, in a hypothetical situation in which they can be 'won over', they should be, but I don't see that happening in a revolutionary situation.

Bud Struggle

17th January 2009, 23:22

It's 'nasty', but what if cops set up road blocks in your neighborhood and randomly fire at civilians? Would you avoid confronting them if they attack you and your family? Of course not--but 99.90% of what police do is really pretty decent stuff. The help people with medical and social emergencies, they help in car crashes and fires, they stop people from beaking the cap out of each other--they aren't rich...no one gives them anything other than the pay they earn. They are in the union (maybe no the IWW :rolleyes:) but unions none the less.

I'd agree that, in a hypothetical situation in which they can be 'won over', they should be, but I don't see that happening in a revolutionary situation. Who knows? When you discount people they have a tendancy to discount you back.

Pogue

17th January 2009, 23:46

Of course not--but 99.90% of what police do is really pretty decent stuff. The help people with medical and social emergencies, they help in car crashes and fires, they stop people from beaking the cap out of each other--they aren't rich...no one gives them anything other than the pay they earn. They are in the union (maybe no the IWW :rolleyes:) but unions none the less.

Who knows? When you discount people they have a tendancy to discount you back.

The police are not permitted to join unions or strike.

danyboy27

17th January 2009, 23:50

Of course not--but 99.90% of what police do is really pretty decent stuff. The help people with medical and social emergencies, they help in car crashes and fires, they stop people from beaking the cap out of each other--they aren't rich...no one gives them anything other than the pay they earn. They are in the union (maybe no the IWW :rolleyes:) but unions none the less.

i really agree with that. my place would look like beirut without them, and i am really serious, with a reaction time of 5 min for any emergency, i am really glad i pay their salaries.

danyboy27

17th January 2009, 23:52

The police are not permitted to join unions or strike.

bullshit, the cops here are unionized, and they have syndicates. they cannot strike, but they do stuff like not giving speeding ticket or wearing cammo pants rather than regular ones, they are imaginatives in their way of making pressure.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 00:21

bullshit, the cops here are unionized, and they have syndicates. .

There's two types of unions from the way I see it, there's unions of working people of every type...and then there's the Sophisticatos of the "Movement" (revolutionary or bowel--I can't tell wich) that PICK and CHOOSE those WORTHY of being called "working men."

;)

If I was a working man I'd have no problem wich union I would belong to.

danyboy27

18th January 2009, 00:27

There's two types of unions from the way I see it, there's unions of working people of every type...and then there's the Sophisticatos of the "Movement" (revolutionary or bowel--I can't tell wich) that PICK and CHOOSE those WORTHY of being called "working men."

;)

If I was a working man I'd have no problem wich union I would belong to.

i dont really get it tomk, can you explain it more accuratly?

Qwerty Dvorak

18th January 2009, 00:29

It must be so hard for you guys to sit at your computers in your quiet little towns and condone murder half way across the world.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 00:38

It must be so hard for you guys to sit at your computers in your quiet little towns and condone murder half way across the world.

Murder BY police is WRONG.. Murder OF police is WRONG. What's so hard to understand?

dont really get it tomk, can you explain it more accuratly? Some unions take all working men in--some unions like th IWW "pick and choose" those "worthy" to be in their ranks.

The IWW is something of an Aristocratic union. There's lots of Capitalists that are more down to earth and more human than any IWWer--that's why "Class theory" is idiotic--the second someone gets to "choose" his associates, he belongs to another "class." ;)

danyboy27

18th January 2009, 00:52

The IWW is something of an Aristocratic union. There's lots of Capitalists that are more down to earth and more human than any IWWer--that's why "Class theory" is idiotic--the second someone gets to "choose" his associates, he belongs to another "class." ;)

is it really what they are doing? if its the case this is one bullshit organization.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 01:02

is it really what they are doing? if its the case this is one bullshit organization.

To be fair--I'm being onesided,

In a heart beat they'll be busloads of IWWers pounding on to what I say--with piles of "reasons" and "finesses" and loads of "but you don't understands." So listen to their side of things, but as a Capitalist, I gotta say ANYONE is welcome in my company. Anyone is welcome in any organization I belong to.

Seems the IWWers (with boatloads of reasons) feel they should be "exclusive."

danyboy27

18th January 2009, 01:13

To be fair--I'm being onesided,

In a heart beat they'll be busloads of IWWers pounding on to what I say--with piles of "reasons" and "finesses" and loads of "but you don't understands." So listen to their side of things, but as a Capitalist, I gotta say ANYONE is welcome in my company. Anyone is welcome in any organization I belong to.

Seems the IWWers (with boatloads of reasons) feel they should be "exclusive."

its all depend, how far discrimination critera goes? i know they dont usually allow bosses but beside that..

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 01:26

its all depend, how far discrimination critera goes? i know they dont usually allow bosses but beside that..

They also don't allow police. OK we can understand bosses--different class and all that BS, but police are in the same class--but they DON'T LIKE them. So they pick and choose.

Pogue

18th January 2009, 01:44

To be fair--I'm being onesided,

In a heart beat they'll be busloads of IWWers pounding on to what I say--with piles of "reasons" and "finesses" and loads of "but you don't understands." So listen to their side of things, but as a Capitalist, I gotta say ANYONE is welcome in my company. Anyone is welcome in any organization I belong to.

Seems the IWWers (with boatloads of reasons) feel they should be "exclusive."

What. The. Fuck. Are you talking about? How do we feel we should be 'exclusive'?

Pirate turtle the 11th

18th January 2009, 11:24

I gotta say ANYONE is welcome in my company.

I seriously doubt that.

Pogue

18th January 2009, 12:20

Seeing as TomK has not yet responded, I'll clear it up before he makes another vague, baseless and confusing post.

The IWW is a union formed to unite the working class in a struggle to overthrow the wage system and capitalism, and also for defending workers in the short time and getting gains for them. If you don't agree with the general bourgeoisie and proletariat analysis then theres no point explaining it to you, but its clearly deonstrated in how the bourgeoisie are the ones who cut the proletariats wages and sack them in order to get more profit for themselves. Class conflict is real. The IWW is a union, organisation for those who are the victims of the bourgeoisie, the working class. Thus, we welcome anyone whose class relation is one who sells their labour to the bourgeoisie for a wage. Thus you cannot be an boss. We also exclude police as they are often used to crush strikes and protests and defend capitalism so are against our interests as workers, who will strike, protest, etc.

Therefore we exclude no one except people who are naturally opposed to us. This still leaves about 90% + of the world who could join our union. Thats not exclusive. We're the least exclusive union in the world as we accept any wage earner.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 13:17

Therefore we exclude no one except people who are naturally opposed to us. This still leaves about 90% + of the world who could join our union. Thats not exclusive. We're the least exclusive union in the world as we accept any wage earner.

My mistake, I guess. I was under the impression that you didn't allow police into your union. They are wage earners and union members in their own unions. They also are working class.

Anyway, if you let police into your union--I was wrong, if you don't, my point still stands.

I wasn't speaking about the Bourgeois. I understand that point quite well, now. :)

Pogue

18th January 2009, 15:38

My mistake, I guess. I was under the impression that you didn't allow police into your union. They are wage earners and union members in their own unions. They also are working class.

Anyway, if you let police into your union--I was wrong, if you don't, my point still stands.

I wasn't speaking about the Bourgeois. I understand that point quite well, now. :)

Did you not read the rest of my post, where I explained how the police are not considered part of the traidtional working class? Stop being pedantic and trollish. Ok, so my language would seem to contradict itself, but its clear what I was saying specially in the paragraph right before I explained that police are considered enemie sof the working class. We can have this argument if you want. Just don't be stupid and pick up on small linguistic errors when I clearly stated we don't let the police in and why.

Labor Shall Rule

18th January 2009, 17:23

Robert

18th January 2009, 19:12

Labor Shall Rule

18th January 2009, 19:32

Is there any example, in the entire history of this board, of a capitalist or reformist using such abusive language towards a communist of any stripe?

Labor Shall Rule, you're either going to win this revolution with: 1) guns; or 2) persuasive speech. I think you need guns.

We'll 'win' by convincing the masses that they are a loaded gun. It takes legal appeals, public demonstrations, and electoral struggle to do so. That is 'peaceful' persuasion, and it is tied to influencing public policy to encourage more popular power.

But sadly, you are tying 'violence' to socialist she-devils rather than seeing it as the bi-product of political struggle. If you want to influence governmental policy to increase the minimum wage, then you're effectiveness in doing so is limited by the police, intelligence services, the courts, and even the military. And if you have read a history book once and a while, you can see that those armed forces of the state haven't been that kind to us in the past (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chile_coup).

This is especially true if the government is overtly opposed to your views/demands, which it always is.

danyboy27

18th January 2009, 21:32

If you want to influence governmental policy to increase the minimum wage, then you're effectiveness in doing so is limited by the police, intelligence services, the courts, and even the military. And if you have read a history book once and a while, you can see that those armed forces of the state haven't been that kind to us in the past

no, its limited by:
A.political willingness of political party
B.the quality of politician elected
C. the will of the people in the voting station
D. the efficiency of the bureaucracy

you elect a majoritary governement, they vote laws, for exemple increase of the minimum wage, its happening and that it.

the police, the military and the courts are nothing but cogs in the whole system, its up to us to choose neutral, professional peoples to do those task, and to punish those who are doing bad things IE a cop killing a innocent civilian.

i for myself is really concerned on how in the us and canada the governement can vote in judges, i dont think its in their field of competence and that judges should be choosen according to their competences, not their political affiliations, same goes for minister, only the head of state and member of the parlement should be elected. There is nothing rationnal of letting politician choose who gonna manage this ministry or this one, it should be a matter of qualification,not of political affiliation.

Labor Shall Rule

18th January 2009, 22:26

no, its limited by:
A.political willingness of political party
B.the quality of politician elected
C. the will of the people in the voting station
D. the efficiency of the bureaucracy

you elect a majoritary governement, they vote laws, for exemple increase of the minimum wage, its happening and that it.

the police, the military and the courts are nothing but cogs in the whole system, its up to us to choose neutral, professional peoples to do those task, and to punish those who are doing bad things IE a cop killing a innocent civilian.

i for myself is really concerned on how in the us and canada the governement can vote in judges, i dont think its in their field of competence and that judges should be choosen according to their competences, not their political affiliations, same goes for minister, only the head of state and member of the parlement should be elected. There is nothing rationnal of letting politician choose who gonna manage this ministry or this one, it should be a matter of qualification,not of political affiliation.

We're going to roleplay a little here:

Let's say I'm the owner of a sugar plantation that employs 100 workers. I pay them $4 as their hourly wage.

Joe Huegla (fictional) is elected President, and under the mandate that the voters give him, he sets out to enact his agenda. He raises the minimum wage, declares housing to be a 'universal right' and builds new projects, and most radically, he legalizes trade unions for the first time in the country's history.

The times have changed for me: I'm required to pay my workers $10 instead of $4. After a costly strike, I have to raise it to $12. This means that for me (and other cash crop producers) the market value of sugar has declined, and I have a lower rate of return for my investment. The banks notice that I'm less able to make payments to them, and they are starting to run to the ground too. Foreign investors do not think that my country has a favorable business climate, and they start to withdraw.

I call a secret meeting for me and members of my elite. Governors, mayors, and judges that I helped to elect with millions of dollars in campaign contributions are there with me. We all agree - Huegla has got to go. We get in contact with a General that has similar political ambitions to us, and ask him carry out a putsch. He agrees.

The next month, the General marches his troops into the capital city over night, and then they take up strategic positions. He seizes the Presidential Palace, and puts Huegla under arrest. A new government is declared, and all the reforms that Huegla started are erased.

I pay my workers $4 as their hourly wage again, and any union members that want to rabble are placed under arrest.

How could this not happen here? This is why confrontation with the state often becomes necessary.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 22:27

Did you not read the rest of my post, where I explained how the police are not considered part of the traidtional working class? Stop being pedantic and trollish. Ok, so my language would seem to contradict itself, but its clear what I was saying specially in the paragraph right before I explained that police are considered enemie sof the working class. We can have this argument if you want. Just don't be stupid and pick up on small linguistic errors when I clearly stated we don't let the police in and why.

Calm down. Just playing a bit--sorry to get you upset, but onto the matter of police--they ARE Proletarian, as much as any worker. Yes they do keep the social order, but that is wat they are PAID to do as much as Starbuckers are PAID to serve the Borugeoise coffee.

Who the hell are you (the collective IWW "you") to say who is "worthy" of being Proletarian in your eyes or not. It seems either you are proletarian and should be in the IWW or you aren't. I undertand the Bourgeois rule very well, but the one about the police has nothing at all to do with class.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 22:40

Tomk, you are a fucking idiot. The police have a social role outside of your romanticized image of a guy that saves a family's dog from a house fire. For pete's sake, they are blinding the eyes of workers with tear gas, clubbing children, and are making Athens - a site of philosophy and critical thinking, and the originating city of democracy itself - into a police state.

The police are keeping a social order so that people don't hurt themselves--true this all started by and unfortunate shooting by the police, but for the most part they let people protest and do whatever it is that people do as long as they remain peaceful.

Further--99.99999% of the people of the world don't live in Athens, they live in communities where they are SERVED, both Bourgeoise and PROLETARIAN, by the police.

Police serve a valuable function protecting people from harm and helping people that have been harmed. For you to discriminate against them for SERVING people in time of trouble is callous in the extreme. (Though judging from your above post--such antics don't seem to trouble you much:)) But who the heck are you to say who is a worthy Proletarian?

We Bourgeois never discriminate against one another--once you are in the club, you are in the club.:thumbup:

Labor Shall Rule

18th January 2009, 22:59

The police are keeping a social order so that people don't hurt themselves--true this all started by and unfortunate shooting by the police, but for the most part they let people protest and do whatever it is that people do as long as they remain peaceful.

Further--99.99999% of the people of the world don't live in Athens, they live in communities where they are SERVED, both Bourgeoise and PROLETARIAN, by the police.

Police serve a valuable function protecting people from harm and helping people that have been harmed. For you to discriminate against them for SERVING people in time of trouble is callous in the extreme. (Though judging from your above post--such antics don't seem to trouble you much:)) But who the heck are you to say who is a worthy Proletarian?

We Bourgeois never discriminate against one another--once you are in the club, you are in the club.:thumbup:

Tomk, could you provide me a link or some sort of address to your business? I think you're a little fucking kid, and unless I see some sort of documentation that proves you're a capitalist, I can't really take you seriously.

The majority of people in prisons are there for "property" crimes - theft, robbery, grand theft auto, shoplifting, and the like. It's because the purpose of the police is to prevent "anti-social" (i.e. anti-profit) activity from being carried out.

This can only be assumed because economic activity and money (the 'base') is the determinant of why a society behaves a certain way. There is no way we 'need' to have a coercive, armed entity that is given special immunities and privileges from the rest of the populace other than to protect the interests of those that have the most influence over the state power.

Bud Struggle

18th January 2009, 23:19

Tomk, could you provide me a link or some sort of address to your business? I think you're a little fucking kid, and unless I see some sort of documentation that proves you're a capitalist, I can't really take you seriously.
Ah yes! The obligatory Commie prologue of insults. :D

The majority of people in prisons are there for "property" crimes - theft, robbery, grand theft auto, shoplifting, and the like. It's because the purpose of the police is to prevent "anti-social" (i.e. anti-profit) activity from being carried out. Sure most crimes are "property" crimes, but lots of crimes are aggravated assalt and rape and murder--people hurting each other and police help there. Also, just because the prevailing order is property orientated does that mean police shouldn't do their jobs? If the IWW is in all the Starbucks, does that mean that they will give out coffee out for free or will they obey the prevailing order and charge money for the coffee?

This can only be assumed because economic activity and money (the 'base') is the determinant of why a society behaves a certain way. There is no way we 'need' to have a coercive, armed entity that is given special immunities and privileges from the rest of the populace other than to protect the interests of those that have the most influence over the state power. Hmmm. From what I've seen of Socialist goverment (albeit somewhat erstaz) is that they have one heck of a lot more police than Capitalist governments. And not only regular police, but THOUGHT police like the Stazi and the KGB.

Ever been to Cuba? Do you think there are more or less police there than in nearby Florida? Think there are LESS police in North Korea or South Korea? I do apologize if these facts destroy your little fantasy.

danyboy27

19th January 2009, 00:11

We're going to roleplay a little here:

Let's say I'm the owner of a sugar plantation that employs 100 workers. I pay them $4 as their hourly wage.

Joe Huegla (fictional) is elected President, and under the mandate that the voters give him, he sets out to enact his agenda. He raises the minimum wage, declares housing to be a 'universal right' and builds new projects, and most radically, he legalizes trade unions for the first time in the country's history.

The times have changed for me: I'm required to pay my workers $10 instead of $4. After a costly strike, I have to raise it to $12. This means that for me (and other cash crop producers) the market value of sugar has declined, and I have a lower rate of return for my investment. The banks notice that I'm less able to make payments to them, and they are starting to run to the ground too. Foreign investors do not think that my country has a favorable business climate, and they start to withdraw.

I call a secret meeting for me and members of my elite. Governors, mayors, and judges that I helped to elect with millions of dollars in campaign contributions are there with me. We all agree - Huegla has got to go. We get in contact with a General that has similar political ambitions to us, and ask him carry out a putsch. He agrees.

The next month, the General marches his troops into the capital city over night, and then they take up strategic positions. He seizes the Presidential Palace, and puts Huegla under arrest. A new government is declared, and all the reforms that Huegla started are erased.

I pay my workers $4 as their hourly wage again, and any union members that want to rabble are placed under arrest.

How could this not happen here? This is why confrontation with the state often becomes necessary.

if making a putch would be that easy how come it didnt happen that often then?

if it was that simple, how come morales still in power? and castro? and chavez? and medvedev? and mugabe?

people get fucked up by their own military when they dont have a control over it, that what happpen when you appoint political people or instable personality at high ranking position.

Chavez resisted to a coup partially beccause he had at least a partial control over hit military, he appointed trusthworthy competents peoples, and they saved his ass.

Robert

19th January 2009, 00:25

This is especially true if the government is overtly opposed to your views/demands, which it always is.

Always? Try never. Sorry, but I can't relate to one single word of your claim. There is not one thing I want from the government that it has failed to deliver, and it offers me more than I really want. Not that there aren't people who do need social services that I help pay for. Many do, unfortunately, but I'm proud that my government delivers on that score. Or tries very hard in failing. I know real people in child protective services, the sanitation department, clerks of court, Secret Service, customs, and animal control. Not bureaucrats. Real workers. That's what government is; it's not just pigs killing demonstrators. They're just people. And they're entitled to our respect.

The next month, the General marches his troops into the capital city over night, and then they take up strategic positions. He seizes the Presidential Palace, and puts Huegla under arrest. A new government is declared, and all the reforms that Huegla started are erased

You're now confusing exercise of power with abuse of power. I'll be glad to go march with you in the unlikely event that a Latin American banana coup occurs in the USA.

Police serve a valuable function protecting people from harm and helping people that have been harmedCorrect. Here for example is what cops doe every day in my city, in accordance with law enacted by directly elected representatives.

(b) A peace officer who investigates a family violence allegation or who responds to a disturbance call that may involve family violence shall advise any possible adult victim of all reasonable means to prevent further family violence, including giving written notice of a victim's legal rights and remedies and of the availability of shelter or other community services for family violence victims

And women face far more danger and peril from drunk, abusive male assholes than they do from the bourgeoisie or corporate interests like Proctor & Gamble & Exxon-Mobil.

The majority of people in prisons are there for "property" crimes - theft, robbery, grand theft auto, shoplifting, and the like. It's because the purpose of the police is to prevent "anti-social" (i.e. anti-profit) activity from being carried out.
Lots to talk about here: first, you aren't going to go to prison for stealing bread to feed your family. The last chapter of Les Miserables was written over a hundred years ago. And come to think of it, theft cases that do get reported are almost never for bread. Judges are mostly politicians, directly elected, not appointed by General Mills. they can't even afford to keep petty, non-violent crooks in jail for long. And you think they want a headline like this as re-election time nears?

JUDGE SENDS MOM TO PRISON FOR FEEDING STARVING CHILD

You don't even go to prison for stealing cars either. Unless you do it over and over again or as a professional who doesn't even look for legitimate work. At some point, people who have to buy a new car to replace the one you stole would rather see you go to jail, then get out and get a job, than to help you achieve revolutionary goals. They're not brainwashed. They just like their cars more than they like you. :mellow:

Most criminals in prison are there for violent crimes, not property crimes. Note that I'm talking prison, not jail. Repeated violent crimes. Bad violent crimes. Not slapping your sister over a cookie.

There are more thefts than murders, of course, but if you steal a car or a television, you're getting probation (the first time or two anyway).

Here are some statistics, though I regret to disclose that they are maintained by corporate controlled stooges in the Department of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Felony

#FF0000

19th January 2009, 00:43

But who the heck are you to say who is a worthy Proletarian?

Well, he's a communist who's read up on Marx and has an understanding of what constitutes "class". And he is write. Soldiers and Cops, though they might "work hard" are not proletarians.

Bud Struggle

19th January 2009, 14:47

Well, he's a communist who's read up on Marx and has an understanding of what constitutes "class". And he is write. Soldiers and Cops, though they might "work hard" are not proletarians.

Cool--it's only the people you guys "like." Anyway what are they, the cops and soldiers? It seems to me the Cubans and the Soviets and the Chinese, et. all thought their "patriotic armies" were part of the Proletariat. I definitely thing they would take exception to your ideas of Communism.

This is much like when a Capitalist country invades another country it's "Imperialist Aggression," but when a Socialist country invades another country it's "Defending Socialism."

Sorry, just cutting through all the BS. :D

Robert

19th January 2009, 15:18

Jazzratt

20th January 2009, 02:25

The fraternity and mutual respect among cops and firefighters fits in here somewhere too. If the firemen have to choose between loyalty to their cop buddies and solidarity with the Workers, I wonder which way they'll go.

Firefighters have been on strike fairly often where I am (usually with the army scabbing). They've been harassed by the same cops as any other worker, the "cop-figherfighter solidarity" probably flies out the window when the latter are suffering the truncheons of the former.

Plagueround

20th January 2009, 11:13

Cool--it's only the people you guys "like." Anyway what are they, the cops and soldiers? It seems to me the Cubans and the Soviets and the Chinese, et. all thought their "patriotic armies" were part of the Proletariat. I definitely thing they would take exception to your ideas of Communism.

I totally swore off the OI, but I think this is a good place to put my thoughts on the matter.

It's not a matter of who people "like". It is a matter of their relationship to the power structure. The reason police and soldiers are seen as enemies to the working class is because they enforce the "norms" of capitalist society by imprisoning, injuring, intimidating, and even killing as a means of protecting that power structure. Yes, there are crimes that go beyond the notion of property and there are other things that police do that are genuinely good. But those things do not change that relationship. If a police officer or soldier were to side with the working class, they would be working against the interests of the social "order" they are protecting.

As for the "patriotic armies", I would think there is a marked difference between having soldiers for the purpose of defense from outside attacks, and having a standing army for invasion and intimidation, even the American Revolutionaries said as much. As far as the countries you named and the things they did, I think the police force and military were serving the same purpose as the police and soldiers here and now. Perhaps this might clue you in to the reason many of us around here are anarchists? ;)

You would have to talk to someone else for a different answer.

There are two bright sides to the cop and soldier thing I can see:

1. In previous revolutions and uprisings, many police and soldiers refuse to fire on their own people. While they may not often be conscious of the roles they play in enforcing the will of the ruling class, many of them are convinced they are there to do what is right...again, the conflict between the "job" (enforcing the written laws) and the "civic duty" (a "moral imperative" of some kind).

2. People's tolerance for police brutality and foreign military seems to be declining (in the US). Hopefully this can continue.

This is much like when a Capitalist country invades another country it's "Imperialist Aggression," but when a Socialist country invades another country it's "Defending Socialism."

Sorry, just cutting through all the BS. :DYou will find little defense of any "socialist" country that openly invaded other countries for the purpose of gaining territory, and it's definitely one of the things that baffles me. Again, while I don't speak for Rorschach, last I checked he was a libertarian communist/anarchist of some kind, so your criticism of his argument doesn't much apply. I suppose you'll have to talk to one of the more "Statist" commies around here. :lol:

#FF0000

20th January 2009, 11:50

Bud Struggle

20th January 2009, 21:05

Perhaps this might clue you in to the reason many of us around here are anarchists? ;)

Even though your criticism doesn't apply to me, I'll respond anyway. :mellow:

You Anarchists are slippery son-of-a-guns aren't you? :D

Thanks for your answers--I really have to look into Anarchism more, to be honest. I sort of do like the idea (out of all the Communisms) best, but I think it's also the most far fetched (but as I said, I don't know that much about it--so I may be missing a couple of important points.)

apathy maybe

20th January 2009, 21:35

You Anarchists are slippery son-of-a-guns aren't you? :D

Thanks for your answers--I really have to look into Anarchism more, to be honest. I sort of do like the idea (out of all the Communisms) best, but I think it's also the most far fetched (but as I said, I don't know that much about it--so I may be missing a couple of important points.)

I think you may have missed that it isn't a "communism". Anarchism is very broad, and means different things to different people.

Many of these people are communists.

However, there are also many people who call themselves communists, who want a system that I would not recognise as anarchistic, because the social hierarchies and power that I despise, would still exist.

I suggest for you, as a "capitalist" to look up "individualist anarchism". A good place to start is to search this board, and to look at "An Anarchist FAQ" Section G (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html).

RGacky3

20th January 2009, 23:43

People who like Lenin a whole lot would explain it like this: Soldiers and cops are tools of the state. Under capitalism, the state serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, and under socialism, it (supposedly) serves the interests of the proletariat. Either way, soldiers and cops aren't proletarians. Sure, they might share more in common with the worker than with the bosses, but they serve the state, which at the moment serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Thats the best explination, that being said, cops themselves are not nessesarily bad people, or have wrong motives, unlike those in power (many times), most of them have the right motives however don't fully understand their role.

That being said, killing them should not be done just for the sake of killing, because like anyone else, they are people, in self defence? Sure, but just for revenge sake? Nope, if thats your attitude then you can't morally judge say the American officer that massecured a whole village because some were hiding vietcong, because its the same argument, they are part of a group in which some consicously act against us, thus fair game.

Robert

21st January 2009, 02:40

I did some scholarly research in light of jazzratt's claim of tensions between cops and firefighters. You know, he's right this time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azIWBgdK1cw

#FF0000

21st January 2009, 05:49

Thats the best explination, that being said, cops themselves are not nessesarily bad people, or have wrong motives, unlike those in power (many times), most of them have the right motives however don't fully understand their role.

That being said, killing them should not be done just for the sake of killing, because like anyone else, they are people, in self defence? Sure, but just for revenge sake? Nope, if thats your attitude then you can't morally judge say the American officer that massecured a whole village because some were hiding vietcong, because its the same argument, they are part of a group in which some consicously act against us, thus fair game.

I sort of agree. Very "sort of". If someone's going to die, then it better be for a good reason. Just shooting a cop "for the movement" does much more harm than good, and now someone's dead for nothing, which makes it worse. That said, I'm not ruling out political violence 100%. I just don't think it's especially useful in most cases.

I think this kind of violence is something we should just expect, in a situation like in Greece, though. People are in a rage over their government's abuse, and so they take action against the institution, which includes violence against the institution's watchdogs.