EPTObviously all anarchists are aimless rebels without a cause. Who gives a shit about Tolstoy, right? Damn he was a useless hippy.
G20 Protests Become Violent - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Obviously all anarchists are aimless rebels without a cause. Who gives a shit about Tolstoy, right? Damn he was a useless hippy. | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On June 29 2010 03:01 koreasilver wrote: I wonder what problem there is in banding people who want to abolish the state into a political party. I mean, that's not a fundamental contradiction at all. Obviously all anarchists are aimless rebels without a cause. Who gives a shit about Tolstoy, right? Damn he was a useless hippy. I dont see a problem at all. So whats the state of your anarchist rebellion? Got 300 million supporters already? Or is the strategy of smashing stuff at demos too good to abandon? I have nothing against people who want to change the world and make it a better place. But I fucking hate idiots who only whine and do nothing productive to change things. Tolstoy lived in a different time. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote: do you often say things with no basis whatsoever? there are millions of communists and anarchists in the world. are you trying to say that none of them are good people who want positive change in the world and want the best for everyone? also, what the hell does communism have to do with it, anyways? I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through. So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote: I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through. So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants. anarchist taken state power there's your problem. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
And so Tolstoy is irrelevant because he died only a century ago? His legacy lives with Gandhi. You might as well just openly dismiss anything that is opposed to your thoughts with no other reason than they oppose you. Thanks for your insight. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 29 2010 03:10 semantics wrote: anarchist taken state power there's your problem. There's nothing inaccurate about what I said. Historically, anarchists and communists have worked and fought together to overthrow governments. Go read up on the Spanish Civil War and the Russian Revolution. With regards to the Russian Revolution, it just so happens that the Bolsheviks turned on the anarchists and wiped them out after they had seized power. This, obviously, would place the anarchists into the "useful idiots" category in this instance. My original point remains: the anarchists contributed to a national disaster. | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
I never said all protesters are communists or anarchists but at least in germany the ones with the big A at their back start throwing stones and escalating everything into violence. And yes they need to become the oppressor first. If you truly believe in anarchism you should be ready to sacrifice your innocence for the good of all. Honestly if they dont want to opress people and live in anarchism they can go to somalia and try establish their own country there. Or get money buy some island and create your anarchist paradise. But anarchists arent doing anything they only whine. So anarchists are the good communists who dont want to opress people ? They only want them to see the light? Thats why they throw stones at people? Those protesters knew what would happen. It happens everytime the g20 come together and most of them go there with violence in mind. Yes im generalizing. You do generalize too. I dont dismiss everything opposing me. I dismiss everything that doesnt use rational arguments to convince me. How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality. And Gandhi is a nice example. How did he achieve his legacy? He convinced people to follow him and his ideas. It wasnt anarchism. He was the right man at the right time. You can clearly see people didnt follow his vision when they fell apart into pakistan and india. Well and to your questions about germans. Yes alot of germans are ignorant and racists. Most dont admit it and cover it up with some unconvincing explanations. I dont exclude myself. Im self critical enough too see that I judge people by their appearance and their heritage even if I dont want to. I feel safer approaching a group of 20 white people instead of 20 blacks at night. If I see an asian tend to think hes nice because in my mind asians are mostly friendly. But that doesnt have anything to do with this. Convince me that those anarchists arent useless idiots. (sorry if its badly written I suck at english) | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
| ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote: I have absolutely no problem standing by that statement. Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power. These are the same people that supported Lenin/Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and Polpot. Please excuse me if I'm disinclined to follow in the foosteps of those individuals and what they put their countries through. So yes, there is no such thing as a good anarchist or communist. At best, they are, as Lenin described, "useful idiots." At worst, they are mass murderers and tyrants. I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote: The only problem is that communists and anarchists have a long history of doing far more than merely smashing windows. There's no such thing as a "good" communist or anarchist. I'm not good?  | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 29 2010 03:48 Yuljan wrote: How do anarchist implent their freedom what do they want to achieve? go back to the stone age and everyone gathers for themself? If not how is it distributed I dont think they will keep money as anarchists. Anarchist live in a dream world and they dont want to accept reality. You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
You're demonstrably evil. You're an anarchist. Anarchists are bad. (See protests and people throwing rocks) Therefore, you're bad. + Show Spoiler +  | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:30 Yurebis wrote: You're demonstrably evil. You're an anarchist. Anarchists are bad. (See protests and people throwing rocks) Therefore, you're bad. + Show Spoiler + Well, thanks for clearing that up :D | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:29 Yurebis wrote: You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false. See: Murray Rothbard | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:29 Yurebis wrote: You seem to be under the impression that 1- The state is necessary for the current capitalist system to function or 2- Anarchism is incompatible with capitalism. which are both arguably false. the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work. | ||
|
The_Voidless
United States184 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote: I laugh at your use of anarchist and power. Anarchist don't want power, we just want to be left alone from the state and its backers (corporations). Study what the word anarchist actually means. A true anarchist society is actually peaceful. Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example. As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 29 2010 04:37 Yuljan wrote: the state is necessary for the current capital system to function. Keep in mind how it came to be that money became our currency. These papers were convertibly into gold thats what gave them their value. As the trust in the currency and governments increased the guarantee to convert money into gold wasnt needed anymore. So basically nowadays money is only worth something because everyone believes its worth something. Capitalism and total freedom? Cant work. So therefore its incompatible. The State isnt necessary for capitalism to work but if people lose faith in the currency after an Anarchist revolution what do we trade for? States are needed for currency and without currency capitalism doesnt work. How do you charge interest in a barter economy? Or do you abolish interest? Dont even let me get started it cant work. Banks can exist without a state. There has been and there still is such a thing as a private bank. Banks can settle issuances of different coins and checks not unlike international governments do. Interest is a function of time preference and not relevant to the state at all. One can't abolish time preference as much as one can't abolish chocolate-ice-cream-preference. On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote: Call it what you want, but the end result is the same. Anarchists want to tear down the state. They have a long history of violently seeking that end. Anarchists often have worked with communists and other revolutionaries to tear down the state. So even assuming that the anarchists don't want power for themselves, they are creating the power vacuums that allows other tyrants to take power. Again, look at the Russian Revolution. There's no better example. As I said before, there's no such thing as a good anarchist. Even if the anarchist does not want power for himself or his group, he's still tearing down the state (usually violently) and creating the conditions that allow for very bad individuals and groups to take power. Even assuming that the anarchist has "good intentions," there is no justification for his positions and what he does. At best, anarchists are useful idiots. I'm sad you think that way. So because there's always going to be a state, we need a state? | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
annoying hippy students imo. | ||
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
States are needed for currency This is where you trip up. States want control of the money supply and interest rates for obvious reasons, so that they can print money without having to directly tax people. They get the full value of the currency before inflation kicks in and wipes out that proportional amount from everyone's savings. In effect it is a hidden regressive tax. But of course the state isn't required to have violent control over currency. For example, prior to 1913 this wasn't the case in the United States. With the creation of the Federal Reserve the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% because of expansion of the money supply. In a free and open market of competing currencies this doesn't tend to happen, and de facto standards do emerge naturally. Gold became one such de facto standard because it makes a good currency: | ||
| ||
