|
On June 29 2010 07:04 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote:
When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market. When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state? I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news. That which is, will forever be so? So if we were both slaves in the dark ages, you'd be telling me to forget about a democratic government, because everyone who's tried to be free has failed? Don't let 'that which is' limit you on 'how it should be'.
Ok, let's go ahead and roll the dice with tearing down the government. How bad can it possibly be? Maybe we'll luck out and get Cuba redux. I suppose it's possible that things could go really badly and we'd end up with another Russian Revolution or Chinese Revolution, but, hey, those weren't all that bad were they? Hell, we might as well play a game of Russian Roulette instead! It'd probably be less painful.
Don't bother comparing your anarchist goals to the social progress that has occurred over the past several centuries. There's a fundemantal difference between the two. Anarchism has been absolutely disastrous every time that it's been tried. When I say "disastrous," I mean "millions of dead people disastrous." Abolitionism and democracy, by contrast, haven't quite had the same body counts attached to them when they have been implemented in the past.
|
you do know fixed gold standards were one of the main reasons for the great depression?
No. During the great depression the fed wanted to inflate the money supply but they couldn't just do it arbitrarily on the gold standard because the amount of money was ultimately tied to the amount of gold in reserve. However, inflating the money supply was a terrible idea anyway because the whole recession was caused by the fed's expansion of the money supply with easy credit in the 1920s. Without the fed the twenties might not have roared so loudly but the depression also wouldn't have happened at all.
Depressions are natural corrections in the marketplace due to manipulations of the money supply, arbitrarily lowering interest rates, etc. There is a direct causal relationship between busts and booms. So you don't get over a bad hangover by binging on more booze. You are just delaying the inevitable, and making the crash to come even worse. This was one of the reasons why the great depression was so devastating, and is exactly what is happening today.
And the "printed money" is only a real small part of actual money.
So? None of it is tied to actual real wealth upon creation.
States no longer create money banks do. Btw thats why we need states too.
States control central banks. And if you want to quibble then they are at least quasi-state entities. It really is of little matter because whatever it is it's not free.
|
On June 29 2010 06:44 Yuljan wrote:
Real gross domestic product (GDP) is a macroeconomic measure of the size of an economy adjusted for price changes (that is, adjusted for changes in the value of money: inflation or deflation.)
The market still is productive in spite of the devaluation of fiat currency. That doesn't make it good or necessary. I can still walk in spite of having a broken toe, doesn't mean I can run. Besides the problems will eventually catch up as we can see happening all over the world. That which logically cannot continue will not. Every nation is broke right now.
|
On June 29 2010 07:17 Kralic wrote:
This thread is comedy gold for the most part.
Protestors have the right to protest peacefully. When the protestors start to smash windows and cause a ruckus(downplayed this) they are no longer protestors, they are a mob. It doesn't matter, you cannot let some people stay while others are forced to leave. Everyone is lumped into the same category.
They have to be overly defensive or aggressive. What would happen if one person got through and decided to actually be a suicide bomber(no I do not think their would be one at this summit)? Well then the police would be criticised and the amount of money spent would be questioned as to why it failed. Either way no one will be happy with the police or government no matter what happens.
Maybe if some of the police force got outnumbered and killed it would change your minds? Protesting is a right, but like most rights you abuse it and it is gone.
problem is, the whole protest is being dragged down by a few of morons that dont really care about anything asides from causing damage, its not like there is a howling mob of 10 000 people tearing through the city.
|
and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves.
yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal
but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor.
I roll my eyes at statist fundies like you who think elites initiating violence against peaceful people somehow brings virtue.
|
On June 29 2010 07:31 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves.
yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal
but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor. I roll my eyes at statist fundies like you who think elites initiating violence against peaceful people somehow brings virtue.
I roll my eyes at austrian school hobby economists.
|
On June 29 2010 07:31 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves.
yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal
but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor. I roll my eyes at statist fundies like you who think elites initiating violence against peaceful people somehow brings virtue.
Yes, please tell us more about those poor, peaceful anarchists.
I'm getting the sense that the self-described "anarchists" in this thread don't even really understand what they proclaim to be and champion.
|
On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples? 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. 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. 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.
Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked.
One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
|
I roll my eyes at austrian school hobby economists.
I freely admit to being a hobby economist. As opposed to you of course. Where did you say you studied economics again?
|
On June 29 2010 07:54 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples? 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. 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. 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. Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked. One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate.
lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
|
This thread has gotten too annoying to bother posting in. Lots of people are talking about anarchists without even knowing what anarchists actually stand for. Hey, i saw some anarchists on tv that were throwing rocks and wearing black masks. Now I know what anarchism means!
BTW, gandhi was an anarchist, at least philosophically. If you argue this you either don't know gandhi's views, or you don't know what anarchism is.
|
On June 29 2010 07:31 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +and then no one runs the cities.... towns.... villages....tribes...caves.
yea man, utopia would be pretty sweet deal
but this is humanity we are talking about. i roll my eyes at this kinda thing... keep dreaming you little dream sailor. I roll my eyes at statist fundies like you who think elites initiating violence against peaceful people somehow brings virtue.
yes. throwing rocks in windows of banks and businesses. very peaceful.
these people are just so ignorant that they can even think that they are "the voice of the people" when we have 30 million people in this country NOT protesting the g20. seriously they need to fuck off and die. or move. or move and die. na fuck it just die.
|
On June 29 2010 07:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 07:04 Yurebis wrote:On June 29 2010 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 06:41 Yurebis wrote:
When you say "take down"... "wreckage"... I don't know if you're speaking figuratively but in case you're not... nothing has to be destroyed in the abolition of a state.
What happens is, people stop paying taxes, government goes bankrupt (oh wait, it already is), then people inside government will have to find voluntary (by voluntary, I mean non-coercive) jobs like anyone else, and those government services who were being paid by theft (taxation) will also have to be provided voluntarily like any other service in the market. When has a state ever been peacefully abolished leaving anarchy? Better yet, when has a "peaceful" or "idealistic" anarchist state ever persisted following the abolition of a state? I'll answer those questions for you: Never. Anarchists have been and always will be bad news. That which is, will forever be so? So if we were both slaves in the dark ages, you'd be telling me to forget about a democratic government, because everyone who's tried to be free has failed? Don't let 'that which is' limit you on 'how it should be'. Ok, let's go ahead and roll the dice with tearing down the government. How bad can it possibly be? Maybe we'll luck out and get Cuba redux. I suppose it's possible that things could go really badly and we'd end up with another Russian Revolution or Chinese Revolution, but, hey, those weren't all that bad were they? Hell, we might as well play a game of Russian Roulette instead! It'd probably be less painful. Don't bother comparing your anarchist goals to the social progress that has occurred over the past several centuries. There's a fundemantal difference between the two. Anarchism has been absolutely disastrous every time that it's been tried. When I say "disastrous," I mean "millions of dead people disastrous." Abolitionism and democracy, by contrast, haven't quite had the same body counts attached to them when they have been implemented in the past.
Ok well I did read a bit just so I could understand where you're coming from. I hate inductive discussion, so correct me if I'm wrong.
You claim:
1- The Russian revolution was an attempt of anarchism.
I disagree with this. Were not the anarchists betrayed by the Bolsheviks? Backstabbing can happen to anyone...
And a minor objection. I really don't care what they did. If they chose to violate people's property (or self-ownership) in order to protect them, that's a direct performative contradiction no different than what a state does. They're not anti-state, they're the new state when and if they do that.
2- The Chinese revolution was an attempt of anarchism.
Just because the nationalist party had self-proclaimed anarchists, you paint the whole thing as an anarchistic attempt? It can't be by definition. Anarchism means first of all, no rule. How can there be an anarchist party, an anarchist leader, anarchist rule? It's a direct contradiction. We're not talking about the same anarchism here. Whatever anarchism means in this context, it is just some twisted type of anarcho-syndicalism taken to a government level, or in other words, communism of some flavor.
I find it very very unfair that you blame anarchists for this.
3- Whenever else anarchism is tried, it has failed and people die.
I've please explain to me, in a logical discourse, how could people be consistently killed by anarchists who don't contradict themselves. Explain to me what incentive is there for people to be killed by anarchists in a revolution.
I could explain to you why would the state want to kill people in a revolution, but I'm not the one claiming that, at the moment. Sorry for the late replies.
|
On June 29 2010 08:10 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 07:54 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples? 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. 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. 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. Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked. One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate. lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation.
Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said?
Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is.
Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
|
yes. throwing rocks in windows of banks and businesses. very peaceful.
these people are just so ignorant that they can even think that they are "the voice of the people" when we have 30 million people in this country NOT protesting the g20. seriously they need to fuck off and die. or move. or move and die. na fuck it just die.
I said peaceful people, not peaceful anarchists. I was talking about taxation not the rioting. And this being beside the point anyway but I don't agree with smashing up shit. I don't agree with the anti-capitalist anarchist rioters. I accept private property and deplore violence but I am still an anarchist too by definition. That's not a contradiction.
|
On June 29 2010 09:09 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 08:10 Motiva wrote:On June 29 2010 07:54 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples? 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. 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. 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. Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked. One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate. lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"... I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation. Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said? Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is. Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions?
Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions.
Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree.
EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country"
|
On June 29 2010 09:25 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 09:09 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 08:10 Motiva wrote:On June 29 2010 07:54 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:21 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Which is more violent:
Smashing windows
or
the continued support of war in the middle east and the continued exploitation of indigenous and 3rd world peoples? 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. 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. 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. Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked. One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate. lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"... I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation. Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said? Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is. Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions? Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions. Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree. EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country"
Not sure where you get the impression that I'm in some type of furor. From the short time I've been on the forums, it seems peoples' posts are consistently being taken out of context. Just wondering if this is a persistent theme on TL.
|
On June 29 2010 09:45 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 09:25 Motiva wrote:On June 29 2010 09:09 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 08:10 Motiva wrote:On June 29 2010 07:54 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:On June 29 2010 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked. One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate. lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"... I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation. Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said? Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is. Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions? Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions. Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree. EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country" Not sure where you get the impression that I'm in some type of furor. From the short time I've been on the forums, it seems peoples' posts are consistently being taken out of context. Just wondering if this is a persistent theme on TL.
Yes.
Now shush, commie. >:o
|
On June 29 2010 10:00 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 09:45 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 09:25 Motiva wrote:On June 29 2010 09:09 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 08:10 Motiva wrote:On June 29 2010 07:54 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On June 29 2010 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 04:27 EpiCenteR wrote:On June 29 2010 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2010 02:37 travis wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, whose job involves subversion, has a series of youtube lectures/interviews describing how to achieve this very end. He describes anarchists role as being useful at destabilizing the state until there is a power vacuum. I think he even describes them as useful idiots. Although anarchists and communists have different goals, their means are inexorably linked. One can argue that there are signs emerging in modern America similar to what Yuri describes in his subversion outline. Whether these manifestations are the result of communist input is up for debate. lol, I would argue that Anarchism has far more to do with libertarianism. Also the anarchist isn't any less or more justified than any other form of power. You don't think any form of power causes some form of oppression? You don't think that any form of oppression pushed far enough leads to violence against almost any ideals? The real point is, you can take any pocket of philosophies and cite massive destruction. Just because history is written by the victor doesn't mean anarchists are necessarily in the wrong. Furthermore there are some very intelligent things to be said about some anarchist theories.... Just because anarchists succeeded in making freedom public doesn't mean that because they failed to privitize security mean that they are "useful idiots"... I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I merely presented an anarchist's role as perceived from a communist within the context of subverting a nation. Of course libertarians are closer to anarchists on the ideological spectrum. Of course any form of government is a form of oppression. How does any of this invalidate what I've said? Nowhere did I weigh the merits of anarchism in my post. Anarchist have as much influence in bringing about freedom as they do in bringing dictatorships, ie working towards destabilizing the current regime. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It is what it is. Is it common for TL members to jump to conclusions? Hmm, Is it not common for all humans to jump to conclusions. Don't need to have a hernia we obviously agree then and it's clear i made the mistake of not re-reading what exactly you were replying to. No need to have a fit, simple misunderstanding. It seems we agree. EDIT: I also suppose "what I was arguing for" was simply that "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country where anarchists and communists have taken power" could be simplified into "Disaster has inevitably befallen every country" Not sure where you get the impression that I'm in some type of furor. From the short time I've been on the forums, it seems peoples' posts are consistently being taken out of context. Just wondering if this is a persistent theme on TL. Yes. Now shush, commie. >:o
Irony noted.
|
So much fail economics going on in this thread... I get the impression some people learn about economics from watching the evening news(lol).
Anyhow regarding the anarchists and the damage done to Toronto, the police did the right thing.
They held back and didn't injure any peaceful protesters. Letting the police cars burn may not have been absolutely necessary however they decided to take a passive stance which I think was the right call.
Nothing worse than injuring innocents while trying to arrest anarchists. That would have really been a huge scandal and I'm glad they were smart enough to avoid it.
I live in Toronto and I thought about going down there but then decided against it since I didn't want to get in the way and cause more congestion for the cops to deal with. So many people were down there already with their cameras taking pictures and being a general nuisance when they had no interest in protesting. Since I had no such inclination I stayed home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
