I just don't get anarchists. Just don't. And

[Skidmore]

I don't get why these G (insert # here) protests always have to become violent. We've had millions assemble peacefully for war protests. We can't have the same occur for protests about economic justice?

[canetoad]

1. I don't think anarchist have thought beyond the point

of achieving anarchy. What happens next?

[Deja Q]

7. They all kill each other because they think their version of anarchy is better.

[canetoad]

16. Yeah well

that's easy for you guys, you have guns. I'd need to bore them to death.

[lxlxlxl]

20. your taking your cues from t.v.

they arent simple 'anarchists' like they tell you on t.v. most of them are for local control and use of resources...maybe if our press actually did some reporting about what these groups are about, and if they gave them more than five minutes, you would know more. but they dont', the press, despite how gigantic their operations and competition is, is INCREDIBLY HOMOGENOUS when it comes to protest coverage. why is that?

why do people have to get in the streets for people to take hedge fund / global capital critiques seriously? do you think we could succeed if all critiques were limited to internet/print op-eds?

[canetoad]

26. Don't be silly

I haven't turned a tv on in years. Here is a point you should ponder: revolutions may be inspired by high-minded idealists but they are driven by thuggish foot soldiers.

[lxlxlxl]

47. im not expecting a revolution, but i dont think cheaply insulting people on the street is worth it

i tend to agree with you actually about revolutions, but say hypothetically ive given up on revolution, but believe that the way societies and capital are structured in an injust way? i should become a journalist and write opeds? get a policy wonk job? i dont think thats going to work.

[LooseWilly]

211. Thuggish foot soldiers can be idealists too...

... and perhaps that answers the OP.

High Minded Idealistic Foot Soldier Thug... hmm, I was sure that it was gonna turn out to be acronymable into anarchist.

HMIFST. Himfist?...

[YOY]

2. Welp...you're gonna get ambushed by a few of them here...

Not that I disagree with you in entirety...

They do tend to take these protests and turn then into ridiculous childish debacles...and those stupid masks let them be infiltrated easily by provocateurs. (So what if they take fucking pictures of you...I have yet to see the mass arrests of peaceful dissenters that they claim is happening)

[Bjorn Against]

38. I have seen those mass arrests, I almost got caught in one myself at the RNC

More than 800 people were arrested at the RNC, 400 of those arrests happened during one of the protests I participated in and it was a peaceful protest.

[YOY]

50. So are they still in jail in some massive holding tank?

Not to justify the arrests made that day, but I've heard some bizzarre assumption that they are persecuted for life for daring to go against the "man." and ergo must mask themselves...really.

[Bjorn Against]

55. The city of St. Paul had to drop the charges on all of the protesters because they had no evidence.

The City of St. Paul was forced to admit they had nothing to prosecute those 400 people they arrested that night on. It doesn't matter if they weren't "persecuted for life", they were persecuted for that day and the Constitution clearly states that we have a right to freedom of assembly. Our Constitutional rights were violated on that night.

And no, we did not mask ourselves our faces were exposed for all to see and I am sure the police have files on all of us now.

[YOY]

57. and you shouldn't have masked yourselves. Good on you.

Apparently we are not talking about peaceful protestors getting the shaft in this country though. We are talking about people dressing up like batman and breaking windows.

Sorry you had to be put throught that crap by the way. That's true police state bullshit injustice.

[Bjorn Against]

58. The problem is the vast majority of people who are getting the shaft are peaceful.

I don't know if you have been to many protests before, but anyone who has will tell you that they are not the violent events our media portrays them have. There was very little violence at the RNC protests, no one was injured, and aside from a couple broken windows (which were very likely broken by agent provocteurs) the city of St. Paul remained intact. Yet the media kept covering how violent the protests were despite the fact that the protesters were very peaceful, the police on the other hand were not so peaceful.

[YOY]

59. DCer here. I have seen every time the masked kids show up things have a habit of turning messy.

And they have a habit of showing up in DC...

[LooseWilly]

209. Its all about breaking shit...

... and making headlines.

There are plenty of kids who hate the bullshit performed in our names by the government. Or the power routinely thrown around by corporations. Some people analyze these things on a blog/internet bulletin board... and some go out and break corporate/government shit.
It may seem stupid and senseless... hell it may be stupid and senseless... but until CEOs decide that they're willing to accept challenges to duels by these young pissed off anarchists... well, the young'ns'll be stuck with smashing Starbucks windows... and setting cars on fire in the streets.
(If the police were willing to provide anarchists with information about the ownership and professional affiliations of vehicles in a timely fashion... I'm sure that anarchists would only burn the cars of those affiliated with the government or hated corporations... in the meantime, they just have to take a random guess.)

So, all told, DC is an obvious target for shit-breaking...

[XemaSab]

72. Here's the problem:

Most protests are peaceful, but occasionally people start rioting.

How are the cops supposed to know if a demonstration will be peaceful or not before it happens? :shrug:

[LooseWilly]

208. The masks are for the tear gas, not so much the photos.

Cause if you get a good crowd... you'll get the tear gas.

[cali]

3. cue the long line of DUers to set you straight.

Here's the deal: It's not the protesters who spark the violence. It's always the cops. They do it to discredit the protesters and so they can use draconian measures against them. And anarchists are always and ever heroic figures who are striving to free the noble masses.

[rvablue]

8. I hope you're being sarcastic, Cali... n/t

[cali]

10. I'm reflecting the sentiments of quite a few DUers

they're not mine.

[Two Americas]

33. not true

You are maliciously misrepresenting the views of others.

[G_j]

102. where are you getting your information?

have you honestly witnessed these things?

[Two Americas]

31. that is not true, it is just not true

You are referencing another thread, where you also made this claim - that people here are saying that "it's not the protesters who spark the violence. It's always the cops."

No one was saying that. Few, if any, ever would.

No one is saying that "anarchists are always and ever heroic figures who are striving to free the noble masses."

You, however, relentlessly make these sort of false and malicious charges against those who disagree with you about anything, and then repeat them and repeat them until people assume that there must be some credibility to your charges.



...

[cali]

35. oh, please. take your sanctimony and smoke it

yes, I'm mocking all the people who have said that they believe that the windows at the RSB were broken by an infiltrator. But I wasn't referring just to the thread you have in mind. I was also referring to one in which the words fucking pigs were liberally applied to the london cops with zero justification.

There is some credibility to my charges. And you know it.

[Two Americas]

44. yes

You always err on the side of defending those in power and authority, and use mean-spirited personal attacks when anyone disagrees with you.


...

[Raineyb]

199. +1

:thumbsup:

[Downtown Hound]

173. They can no more prove they were broken by an infiltrator than you can prove they weren't

So I wouldn't get all high and mighty there. It has been PROVEN that cops have dressed up like protesters and caused trouble before. Does that mean that it's always the cops doing it? No. But don't start slamming people for being suspicious. They have a right to be mistrustful of the view given to them by them police and the corporate media.

[LooseWilly]

214. Hehe... poor London cops.

Just for the fun of it, and with zero justification, I'll say it too... fucking pig London cops.

The funniest part of this melodrama, to me, is to watch each side trying to assuage its own feelings by asserting that they're "in the right", or "God's on our side", or whatever else makes turning to the bottle less of a necessity when trying to live with what you've done/justified others doing in your name.

Fuck it all- they're all equally right and wrong. The fucking pigs and the fucking thugs... they're all just fighting.

If you want to condemn fighting, so be it. But anyone who tries to assert that their side is 'in the right" in a fight is just deluding themselves... just admit that those who are fighting for your interests are... fighting for your interests. Fighting like the thuggish assholes that everyone who fights becomes (cops, thugs, drug dealers, cab drivers, politicians, etc.).

And in that vein... I declare closer common interests, personally, with the anarchists... Go Anarchists!! :patriot:

[paulsby]

54. actually, cali is right

i was on a line of riot cops during the WTO and was discussing it in another thread. and i got roughly the same reaction that cali mentioned

many people are convinced it wasn't the anarchist asshattery that started the wild rumpus, it was the evul cops (tm) just itching to get some stick time.

the same thing happened at n30. a few major dickheads were the ones smashing shit up, and causing the problems.

[Two Americas]

62. damned protestors

Always blaming the cops.

Obviously, there is no way to comment on things that others allegedly said unless I could actually see them. No doubt you can find someone somehow who said just about anything. That doesn't mean that we can draw any conclusions about a large group of people.

But what you are saying is that all statements implicating the police should be judged by those making the most extreme comments - wherever and whatever those comments actually are.

We are continually asked to believe that somewhere, some leftists or anarchists are making some outrageous statements. The entire group is then characterized by those alleged outrageous statements.


...

[ieoeja]

158. And a year or two ago, protestors restrained rock-throwing protestors in Canada.

When the other protestors went to restrain them they fled ... to the police. This odd reaction, along with their generally police-like appearance and foot-gear 100% identical to that worn by the riot cops led to the media actually doing something weird: they followed up the story to see what charges were pressed against the rock-throwers.

None were charged and the police were forced to acknowledge that the rock-throwers were actually undercover police officers.

I had always been skeptical about the infiltration claims. And I will remain skeptical. But after that incident, I will certainly be less skeptical.

And you know what? Just because you're a cop on the line doesn't necessarily mean the higher-ups will tell you agitators are out there. It'd be harder to keep this kind of shit secret if every cop on the force knew about it.

[Downtown Hound]

175. Hey officer, here's the incident is Ieoeja talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1nHvvkzvA

And here's a story from the DNC of last year, in which the police admitted that some undercovers they had planted were supposed to stage a fight with some of their superiors in order to be removed from the protests without the protesters knowing what was going on. Since the other police didn't know what was going on either, they ended pepper spraying their own man. What this proves is that not only are provocateurs being used and that they are causing trouble and setting a bad tone for the protests, but that many of the cops working the protests don't even know about it. So just because you haven't been let in on the little secret doesn't mean it isn't going on.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10918033

[HughMoran]

188. They interviewed a protestor on BBC "I'm here for the violence, I don't believe in anything"

:rofl:

He literally said that!!!

I literally laughed my ass off!

[joshcryer]

81. It's called "irreverence," and is common with people who lack a proper critique.

[joshcryer]

79. You've never wanted to break a bankers window?

How boring.

[Cid_B]

125. For the Nth time...I t

Ive lost all ability to tell who is being sarcastic or not.

I have seen the "No way protesters could have done this, must have been an undercover agitator" thing pop up a few too many times. This isn't the same category but my favorite was the poster who claimed that the Soldier fired a gas canister into some guys head from 60 yds or something along those lines.

[auburnblu]

174. Not really

Seems like many want attention and to have a chance to destroy things and rage against the machine. Destroying private property is celeberated by these protestors and cheered by some on here.

Peaceful protestors always impress me the most, those that destroy private property are no different from drunk fsns rioting hen their team wins.

[NightWatcher]

4. those people are not representative of all, dare say many, anarchists

these are kids and Black Bloc'ers who like to smash stuff. They hit the streets whenever their soccer team wins or loses big games.

A true Anarchist is someone who simply wants to be in charge of their own live without being ruled by others.

[FLAprogressive]

5. The DU Anarcho-communists are always a hoot.

they want universal health care and gun control -- with no government!

:rofl:

[Artie Bucco]

25. I have told a friend this

There is nothing more pathetic than an unarmed anarchist.

Those same anarchists you speak about are also likely to be vegetarians too.

[step up]

153. Why is it pathetic to be unarmed, yet still believe that government

and other regulating forces are not adequate or desirable?

[Downtown Hound]

180. Says who? You?

On what do you base this off of?

[Raskolnik]

41. Nevermind the irony of an anarchist using the internet in the first place. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

64. Yeah, anarchists are all Amish

I love these threads, every time there's a protest somebody says something stupid about anarchists, and every time those statements get stupider and stupider.


:popcorn:

[joshcryer]

77. So true. Anarchists are not one homogenous group.

Such blanket statements are always hilarious.

[Raskolnik]

94. If you don't see the irony in an anarchist embracing the internet,

given the massive government involvement necessary to develop and maintain it, I suggest you check your meter.

[joshcryer]

103. You use the word "necessary" quite wrecklessly there.

:hi:

[Raskolnik]

130. It would be quite a novel position to maintain that government resources were not necessary

to develop the internet. Pray tell, what private entity(ies) do you think were prepared to jump in and develop the internet, in the absence of publicly funded universities and the defense department?

[Lilith Velkor]

156. That's like saying Obama must support slavery because he lives in a house built by slaves

It's also quite ironic that one can tout the wonders of state power to develop a technology without using it to learn anything about the subject one is discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Raskolnik]

169. No, it really isn't. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

170. Yes, it is.

How can one make a statement about irony in anarchism without even knowing what the fuck it is, without generating more irony?

If you discovered that John Crapper had a different political philosophy than yourself, would it therefore be ironic that you use a flush toilet?

Because that is the exact same fucking thing you are saying about anarchists using the internet.

[Raskolnik]

185. Your analogies are off-base.

I don't find anarchists using the internet to be ironic because it was developed (and is maintained) by some individuals whose political philosophy conflicts with that of anarchists.

I find anarchists using the internet to be ironic because the internet is a product of the state structure anarchists oppose, and could not be maintained in anything resembling its current form without that state structure.

[Lilith Velkor]

196. You find it ironic only because you are uninformed.

You could use the very technology we are discussing to inform yourself, yet you choose not to.

That's ironic.

It's also a very strange notion that technology of any sort is inseparable from the form of government. (Which anarchism is, not a lack of government, but in order to know that, you would have to have simply clicked on a link, which you have not done...why, exactly?)

My analogies are not off-base at all. And I think you know it.

[Raskolnik]

198. If you think I'm going to go down the rabbit-hole of exploring which variant of "anarchism"

is the one true philosophy of ANARCHISM, prepare to be disappointed. The only thing more predictable than anarchists fighting about their own competing definitions of what does and does not constitute *real* anarchy is the humorlessness with which those arguments will be conducted.

Suffice to say, as made clear in your own link, "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable."

The internet could not have been created without a highly developed state, and could not be maintained in its current form without the existence and active participation of a highly developed state. If you honestly don't find it ironic when anarchists embrace the use of the internet, I question your ability to recognize irony.


edit typo

[Lilith Velkor]

202. The internet would not be possible without the mathematics developed in 10th-c. Baghdad

By your logic, it is ironic to use the internet if you are opposed to theocracy.

We could go back and forth on this as much as you like, but the bottom line is that one's personal beliefs on politics has not a fucking thing to do with whether one uses this or that technology, unless those beliefs concern technology and its use.

To argue otherwise is idiocy, which I am quite able to recognize.

[Raskolnik]

203. The internet is much more than a stand-alone "technology"

that exists independent of the state. The internet is fantastically complicted network that depends on highly developed states to maintain it. Without highly developed states constantly working in cooperation to maintain it, it does not exist in any form we would recognize.

Do anarchists lose their ability to discern irony when they have their humor centers removed?

[joshcryer]

222. Uh, the internet is based upon a few dozen routing protocols.

The current internet is indeed convoluted but there is nothing in reality preculding us from making a more refined internet that is just as good.

Most of the software you use when you use the internet is free and open for all to use. Shocking I know.

[joshcryer]

221. I'm going to help out a comrade here. You actually picked a really pathetic example.

The internet is such a worthless example, most people invoke "health care" and "brain surgeons" and so on. Or some other thing that inarguably requires specialized tasks.

The internet can be seen as a decentralized grid of routers which route data. There are many local communities with their own subinternet, particularly as it relates to coops. Think of wifi routers being gridded together to create their own network, then think of it as expanding around the world. The vast majority of internet protocols were created on a voluntary, open, basis. RFCs are, essentially, a geniune reflection of anarchist behavior. Someone says "This protocol might be useful, here's how it works; and here's some sample source code to make it work." People say "that's stupid" or "that's cool" and implement it (or not) themselves.

Use some imagination.

Of course, being unimaginative and boring (like many in this thread), you will respond with some other comment about who produces the routers in this example.

I would only tell you that I would, just like people wrote software for free which this very website is hosted on (apache).

There is this convoluted idea that the right wingers have succeeded in actually pervading mass consciousness. That people don't do shit for nothing (the laws of thermodynamics say nothing is free, so that is a universial truth), but in this context it means that you *require* something to do something, not do something to maybe get something or not. That is, the right wing meme is that no one does something just because they enjoy it. They have to get *paid*.

The idea that I must first be rewarded before I act is absurd. The act itself is rewarding to me, and there are plenty of human scenarios where people enjoy their actions rather than the responses to their actions. Knowing you are doing good vs having the desire to be recognized for some good.

[Downtown Hound]

179. A lot of hippies and counter culture types went into developing it as well

Ever hear of Linux? Free and open source software. No government or corporation needed there. Steve Jobs was a hippie who helped develop the personal computer in his garage. Your argument is completely ridiculous. I guess anarchists aren't allowed to use electricity either since a lot of it comes from nuclear power and that's regulated by the government.

[Downtown Hound]

176. Please explain to me why an anarchist is not allowed to use the internet...

That has to be one of the more stupid things I've heard mentioned about anarchists before.

[Raskolnik]

184. And if I had said that anarchists "aren't allowed to use the internet"

we could discuss the relative merits of that statement. I did not.

I pointed out the irony in anarchists using the intenet.

[Downtown Hound]

206. It's implied in your statement

And there is absolutely nothing ironic about it. It's certainly no more ironic than a liberal that complains about global warming and yet drives a car. In fact, Linux is probably one of the few areas where I can say that anarchist principles have truly played out in the world of technology. Totally decentralized, entirely community based, and free. Linux and the open source software movement is one of the few examples of anarchist philosophy in use today, whether those that use or design Linux know it or not.

[Raskolnik]

207. I wasn't aware that we were discussing Linux. Just let me get my fanny pack and sword collection,

and I should be set.

And yes, it IS ironic if a global warming activist drives from rally to rally in a Hummer towing a can of burning kerosene behind it. Seriously--are anarchists in general opposed to recognizing the concept of irony, or is this localized to DU?

[Downtown Hound]

210. I wasn't talking about a Hummer

A liberal that complains about global warming and yet drives a Hummer isn't being ironic, they're being hypocritical. But we live in an auto-based society. In many areas of this country, it's very difficult or even impossible to function without a car. An environmentally conscious liberal, being aware of this fact and having the appropriate spending power, would seek to minimize the damage caused by this by driving a fuel efficient vehicle. There's nothing ironic in doing so. It's just a tenet of modern life. You need to eat so you need to work, to get to work you need to drive. Sometimes there may be a way around this if you live in an area with good public transportation, and sometimes you can't.

And no we're not discussing Linux per se, but if you're going to mention how ironic it is that an anarchist would use the internet, I just thought I'd point out that the world of computers probably has more functioning anarchist principles actively at work than any other.

And when you say that it's ironic that an anarchist would use the internet, is that just more of a, "ha ha, isn't that ironic" type of thing or is it more of a "hypocritical anarchist" kind of deal? To me it seems more like the latter, and now you're trying to back peddle and say that it's not.

[Raskolnik]

212. Who is backing away from anything?

First of all, irony and hypocricy are not mutually exclusive concepts. I give "anarchists" embracing the internet full credit for being capable of both, in various degrees. I'm sure its not easy for people who embrace such a silly political philosophy to go through life avoiding strong cases of both irony and hypocricy, so I'll chalk this one up to the cost of doing business.

[Downtown Hound]

215. Way to avoid my question

I think we're done here.

[Raskolnik]

216. Um, ok.

I've been dismissed. I'll see you at the next Anarchists United meeting, starting promptly Saturday at 4pm in the public park. Don't forget to bring the kids--there is a beautiful municipal swimming pool that they would love.

[Downtown Hound]

217. Are we allowed to use the swimming pool?

After all they use electricity, and since that comes from the government, well, I don't know. Do I have your permission? Please?

[Raskolnik]

218. Oh, get over yourself.

You're irony impaired, and this little victim schtick isn't terribly endearing.

Now I think we're done here.

[Downtown Hound]

219. Peace, love, and anarchy to you friend. n/t

[joshcryer]

75. An anarchist for gun control? Do tell.

[Lilith Velkor]

91. Use both hands.

:shrug:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

205. I love when anarchists hold their pre-convention press conference on C-Span

You gotta love kids these days.

[LeftinOH]

6. At my peril, I'll state my privately held opinion about anarchists:

they just like to make noise and break stuff.

[ogneopasno]

9. Funny, I have the same opinion.

And I'll add that the masks make them look like cowards.

[YOY]

13. and let them be infiltrated by provocateurs really easily.

Funny how they never show up invited either and make everyone else's peaceful protest trivial...and they don't do it for the right wingers' protests...just ours.

It's like the skinheads showing up at every "tea-bagging" protest and starting a fight with the cops. Yunno, I actually wish that would happen. It would be most entertaining.

[burning rain]

123. Teabagging with right-wingers is its own punishment.

:yoiks:

[catnhatnh]

48. Tell it to the "SWAT" teams...N/T

[lxlxlxl]

27. lets all just sit at home and watch tv/internet

all of these cheap insults are absolutely demeaning, and indicate either 1) you are not serious or 2) you have ZERO fucking respect for how progressive politics has made its voice heard, and made what we have now possible

yeah, im not down with the silly facepainting and dancing, but ill be damned if you think everyone sitting at home is going to make a difference

[FLAprogressive]

32. Anarchy != progressive politics

[joshcryer]

83. Anarchism is the *father* of progressive politics. The anarchists got killed by the communists...

...by the capitalists... by the fascists... they have always been the primrary force against authoritarianism, and *every single progressive critique* started with anarchists at one point in the past, from the critique of property to emancipating individuals from injustice.

It seems you lack knowledge about anarchist history.

[Raskolnik]

39. If you think that smashing other people's shit and sitting at home watching tv are the only choices

you may be misinformed.

[lxlxlxl]

45. you might be misinformed if im going to reply to a cheap insult with a political manifesto

cheap insults get cheap replies.

[Raskolnik]

46. You are the one that implied that sitting at home watching tv was the only alternative

to breaking stuff, not I.

That is a ridiculous dichotomy.

[readmoreoften]

76. Are anarchists smashing your shit? Really? I've never had my shit smashed by anarchists.

I have seen them arrested and even disappeared for smashing the windows of banks. But I don't own a bank, thanks. Oh wait. I do since my tax money is propping them up.

[Raskolnik]

96. Please point out where I suggested that. Thanks. n/t

[readmoreoften]

108. You said "people's shit". Who are these "people" who own a bank?

Am I similarly stealing "people's shit" when I take more than my fair share of sugar packets at Starbucks? If I save seeds and plant them, have I robbed from Monsanto? And how, praytell, do farmers get back the crops that Monsanto claims to own because their polluted projects blew off into farmers' fields.

[Raskolnik]

128. That's right. Taking extra sugar packets or planting your own garden is just like smashing windows

Kudos on that logic.

[blindpig]

186. No understanding of history whatsoever.

As though what rights that have been obtained by the common folk were gotten by acting nice and saying 'please'.

[gardenista]

65. 'til Mommy and Daddy finally notice them,

cut off the trust fund, and they open a vegan cupcake shoppe.

[TexasObserver]

126. It's like kids in the mosh pit. They're there because they need it.

[rvablue]

11. I see it as kind of a sophmoric trend... then they either grow up or they wind up

living in a shed in the woods.

[geek tragedy]

12. Anarchists almost by definition don't care about consequences. n/t

[NashVegas]

14. I Don't Agree With Them, But I Support What They're Doing

"please" and "thank you" don't cut it when you're at war with a plutocracy.

[cali]

15. those aren't the only choices. See Gandhi and King.

[billyoc]

19. It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts,

than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. --Ghandi

;)

[NashVegas]

51. Lovely Quote

Many people who call themselves pacifists are really just people who fear the consequences for standing up for what they believe in.

I disagree that pure anarchy is viable - quite vehemently. But that they're willing to put themselves in danger's way is more likely to help wake up the younger sheep than any intellectual argument you'll hear on Bill Moyers' show. (That's not meant to be a put-down of Moyers at all, btw.)

[Hannah Bell]

22. yep, no violence there, boy. historical amnesia.

[lxlxlxl]

24. Are you even paying attention?

The vast majority of people at these protests are non-violent. Do you think our press gives a shit about them? Did our protests about the war mean anything?

No, I don't support all black block types, but I swear, the cheap attacks against people willing to get off their ass and get in the street is so cheap. Gandhi and MLK's tactics were not about single street protests over issues, they were about people forming armed insurrection groups vs. nonviolent organization. get it right...

[cali]

37. duh, no shit, genius. And I've said that repeatedly

And I've participated in fucking dozens of protests. So shove off.

[blindpig]

189. Behind either of those men was the threat of violence.

Not that they made any threats but those in power understood that if these men were not dealt with that the angry masses without their staying hand would be angrier still.

Nothing is accomplished without force, even if it is only implied.

[lxlxlxl]

17. that is your definition of violence?

i support them. one or two broken windows or overtime pay for police is a small price to pay...

plus, when the police are clearly out to intimidate and break heads, bashing a window is a little more courageous than people are acting.

[cali]

40. people who pull that stupid shit, put everyone else in danger.

that's why I condemn it. Furthermore the cops weren't out to bash heads today. I watched a great portion of those protests, and only wish that American cops had the training and restraint of the brits.

[Overseas]

18. You don't have to get them, you just have to think demonstrations are SCAAARY

You just have to see the violent bits on TV over and over so you'll know that demonstrations are BAAAD and SCAAARY and that reasonable folks should just stay home. That's the message from our conservative media.

You also need to pretend that we don't know there are agent provocateurs in many demonstrations who try to instigate violence to tarnish the reputations of the peaceful demonstrators who far outnumber the violent ones.

The thousands who demonstrate peacefully to protest economic tyranny get lost in the shuffle.

Televising the violence gets us to spend time talking about the horrible violent anarchists instead of the issues of economic injustice and bailing out bad gambles of financial organizations that were allowed to become "too big to fail" because they spent millions lobbying and went wild after getting the deregulation they pushed for.

[canetoad]

29. Please don't

equate anarchy to protesting. They are not the same things.

[Kitty Herder]

67. I don't think that's what Overseas was saying.

He/she was pointing out that the agent provocateurs posing as anarchists are serving the government's purposes.

[Raskolnik]

36. All the more reason why those who choose to be violent jackasses are not helping anyone

The thousands who demonstrate peacefully to protest economic tyranny get lost in the shuffle.

Exactly. It just takes a few destructive fools who can't look beyond how they feel that moment to drown out thousands of people who can make their point clearly and persuasively.

[Seeking Serenity]

21. It's the post-pubescent version of "You're not the boss of me!"

[lxlxlxl]

30. what the hell...

i know your smarter than that. do you think everyone should just hang out on DU, and everything will get better.

[roughsatori]

23. I had a group of Anarchist friends,

They really were very bright, well informed people. They were very kind to me.


BUT: After a few years I bought a condominium right on Rittenhouse Square park, Philadelphia. One day the doorman said that there were "a bunch of wild looking people protesting us." I walked out and my Anarchist friends were chanting with signs that said "eat the rich." I walked over to them and we all laughed. I am very clean-cut looking. But when ever I was with them the police would ALWAYS seem to come around, even when we were just walking the city.

I guess they forgave me because I grew up in the most hideous dilapidated trailer park on the planet.

I no longer live there. I quit my job. Now I just write poetry and am broke again.

[WestSeattle2]

93. LOL!

Well good for you, I'm glad you're doing something you enjoy! Your closing sentence was priceless

[peace13]

28. Ahhh yes we had over 500,000 for the anti - surge demonstration in DC.

It was broadcast on C-SPAN for two hours. Other than that there was no publicity at ALL about this. What good does it do for us to spend time and money to stroke our own selves. Maybe the blood is a necessary component to successful protests. I don't know the answer, all I know is that US protests are very ineffective and it is disturbing to me. If we could get 500,000 back on the mall and Obama actually responded to the issues...now that would be a thing of beauty. Peace, Kim

[TexasObserver]

34. It all comes down to a line from a RAGE song.

"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY&feature=related

You have to wait until the end of the song, but it's there, and it encapsulates the attitude prevalent among those who embrace anarchism.

[daleo]

42. Peaceful war protests didn't stop the war

It makes you think.

[Raskolnik]

43. Neither did violent war protests. n/t

[daleo]

49. Which ones were those?

I don't remember any, though no doubt there must have been some violence at some of the many anti-Iraq protests. The three or four in which I participated were peaceful - maybe they were even effective in a way, as Canada stayed out of the Iraq war (the protests I went to were in Canada).

Anti-Viet Nam protests got fairly violent at times, Kent State being the epitome of that. Arguably, that might have been the key event in stopping that war.

Nobody really wants violence, but the elites seem to be tuning out most vectors of dissent these days. I am willing to give the Obama administration a reasonable period in which to establish its progressive credentials, though.

[Raskolnik]

53. I believe military stalemate and strategic defeat ended the Vietnam war, not protests

I think the violent protests were correlationtional to the war's ending, not causational.


edit spelling

[daleo]

56. I think it contributed to the military stalemate

I think it made it clear to Nixon that there was little reservoir of political support for continuing the war. The causation was multi-factorial in my opinion.

[timtom]

52. What is this in response to?

Emma Goldman?

I lean pretty much toward anarchism, but it's not the mindless chaos that others envision. It's more of a cooperative effort on the part of all to the bettement of all.

It's also highly idealistic.

But I am strongly opposed to violence as a solution!

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. Good job on those war protests!

:wow:

The economic summit protests actually manage to force concessions and get people's attention. How much was the WTO on people's radar before Seattle? Anti-globalization protests, from the turtles, to the teamsters, to the black bloc, forced the issue. Multiple tactics, multiple strategies. Keep 'em off balance. Disallow them from meeting anywhere to make decisions without massive police presence. It exposes power for what it is: sham democracy run rampant. Now they have to show themselves for the police state that they are, which is fine by me. I know it goes against the mythography of the liberal dogma, but some of this stuff actually does work.

[Echo In Light]

61. Thanks for stating that better than I could've

[readmoreoften]

74. THANK YOU!

Glad someone can connect dots here.

[Bjorn Against]

107. Yes, you get it these protests do make a big difference.

And let's note that by far the vast majority of protesters are peaceful, and it is extremely rare that protesters actually commit any acts of violence. I was at the RNC protests in St. Paul and was confronted by extreme police state tactics and mass arrests, but the protesters were non-violent. There were no injuries, and the property damage was not only very limited but looks to have been caused by agent provocateurs. The police were so afraid of our message that they closed off the entire downtown area of St. Paul off to keep us out, I think that says a lot that the Republicans had to close off the city core just in order to have their little party.

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. I think the notion of agent provocateurs is way overblown

Everybody uses it to wash their hands of a set of effective tactics on our side. It's largely fantasy.

[Fumesucker]

122. You're ignoring an awful lot of history to make that statement..

Agents provocateur have been fairly common, they were during the Vietnam war protests and they have also been exposed recently in Canada, the Canadian police eventually had to admit that several agents provocateur were involved in trying to create violence there not all that long ago.

It was commonly known back in the sixties that the person most strongly advocating violence in a protest group had a very good chance of being an agent provocateur, it's what they do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

136. It was an overblown phenomenon then, and remains so

I don't doubt it happens; it clearly does. Whether it happens as often as people on this board claims is another story. I've seen black bloc planning sessions. These people are sincere, theoretically astute about protest tactics, and very much responsible for what they do. It is a liberal pretention that every incidence of so-called "violence" (breaking a window isn't "vioence," but vandalism) can be traced to some agent provocateur.

[Echo In Light]

145. The heated debate in this and other recent similar threads ....

Has more to do with the equally inordinate reaction from those who paint anarchism and/or protesters in general with a broad brush (which frequently comes w/this qualifier: "I used to know or live with groups of anarchists, and I can tell you a thing or two...") and are quite rigid in their preference: undercover cops don't provoke violence in order to justify inflicting violence on the protesters in general. Whether it doesn't happen as often as some people on this board suggest it may is indeed another story also ...ultimately, without more documentation on the subject it boils down to one's subjective take on authority, and from there people side up accordingly.

[Lilith Velkor]

172. Cops don't need justification

They can grab you and beat the shit out of you with no provocation whatsoever, and get away with it by using the magic words: "resisting arrest."

They had total impunity - and concussion grenades - after 9/11. That is why the "plant" thing is bullshit - I don't see what a subjective take on authority has to do with it.

[Downtown Hound]

177. You're probably right

It isn't always provocateurs, but it definitely does happen. The thing is, liberals been to quit freaking out about it when it does happen. That's not to say that they have to endorse such tactics or agree with them. They can even condemn them if they want. They just need to put things in perspective. Vandalism happens all the time. In any given week there's often more random vandalism than happens at any particular protest.

[Echo In Light]

133. Agreed w/your earlier posting, but we part company on this one

Hell, even just since the advent of youtube I've watched videos of non-violent protests where undercover/street clothes cops are clearly shown moving among the crowd randomly inflicting violence, spraying chemicals in people's faces when they're just standing there, etc

[Downtown Hound]

181. Good post. n/t

[Orsino]

63. The greater the perceived injustice, the greater the violence.

We might march for the thousands dying in other hemispheres, but we will fucking riot if you take our homes.

[New Dawn]

66. Most anti-Globalism protesters are not anarchists.

In addition, many of the cases of violence are started by agents-provocateurs (i.e. undercover cops).

Here is a video of Canadian trade-unionists exposing some agents-provocateurs who were trying to disrupt their peaceful protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

[alarimer]

68. Consider the fact they might be agents provocateurs.

Specifically trying to rile up something to make the protesters look bad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Gandhi, the father of peaceful protests, was an Anarchist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India

In Gandhi's view, violence is the source of social problems, and the state is the manifestation of this violence. Hence he concluded that "hat state is perfect and non-violent where the people are governed the least. The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on nonviolence."<1> For Gandhi, the way to achieve such a state of total nonviolence (ahimsa) was changing of the people's minds rather than changing the state which govern people. Self-governance (swaraj) is the principle behind his theory of satyagraha. This swaraj starts from the individual, then moves outward to the village level, and then to the national level; the basic principal is the moral autonomy of the individual is above all other considerations.<1>

Gandhi’s admiration for collective liberation started from very anarchic notion of individualism. According to Gandhi, the conscience of the individual is the only legitimate form of government. Gandhi averred that "Swaraj will be an absurdity if individuals have to surrender their judgment to a majority." He opined that a single good opinion is far better and beneficial than that of the majority of the population if the majority opinion is unsound. Due to this swaraj individualism he rejected both parliamentary politics and their instrument of legitimization, political parties. According to swaraj individualism the notion that the individual exists for the good of the larger organization had to be discarded in favor of the notion that the larger organization exists for the good of the individual, and one must always be free to leave and to dissent.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism

The first large-scale Anarcho-pacifist movement was the Tolstoyan peasant movement of Russia. They were a predominantly peasant movement that set up hundreds of voluntary anarchist pacifist communes based on their interpretation of Christianity as requiring absolute pacifism and the rejection of all coercive authority. They were active throughout Russia and followed a strict Vegetarian diet. Because of their refusal to recognize the authority of the Tsarist State they were targetted for severe repression and many were killed outright or relocated to Siberia. After the Bolshevik Revolution they were again targetted for repression because they refused to recognize the authority of the new Marxist state, just as they had refused to recognize the authority of its predecessor. Most of them were killed in the purges under Lenin and Stalin.

Violence has always been controversial in anarchism, while many Anarchists during the 19th century embraced propaganda of the deed Leo Tolstoy and other anarcho-pacifists directly opposed violence as a means for change and argued that Anarchism must by nature be nonviolent since it is by definition opposition to coercion and force, and that since the State is inherently violent meaningful Pacifism must likewise be Anarchist. His philosophy was cited as a major inspiration by Mohandas Gandhi, an Indian independence leader and pacifist who self-identified as an anarchist. Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis was also instrumental in establishing the pacifist trend within the anarchist movement.<1>

Among late 20th-century anarcho-pacifists was autarchist Robert LeFevre, who based his pacifism on his belief in the inviolability of property rights.<2><3> LeFevre also spoke out against war, which he considered to be a product of the state, and was convinced of the power of non-violent resistance.<4>

Other notable anarcho-pacifist historical figures include Ammon Hennacy and, for a brief period between 1939 and 1940, Jean-Paul Sartre.<5> Ursula K. Le Guin has identified pacifist anarchism as the major utopic element in her novel The Dispossessed.<6>

[Odin2005]

70. That most anarchist-caused violence seems to be by young males tells me all I need to know.

(Full disclosure I'm a guy)

It's testosterone-fueled "I wanna break shit" mindless rage dressed up with nice-sounding ideology. These idiots screw everyone else who does not think vandalizing buildings and torching cars is cool.

Of course the stock excuse is blaming agent provocateurs for all of it, which is pathetic. That's not to say there are not agent provocateurs, but I highly doubt the majority of it is caused by them.

[TBF]

71. That Henry David Thoreau.... always getting violent and smashing things out by the pond

"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.... Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

“'That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

[Odin2005]

78. You can't have a complex society without a government.

Anarchists don't seem to understand that if you get rid of government all you get is rule by gangsters. I have no use for delusional utopians, I live in the real world filled with inherently flawed human beings, many of which who are inherently jerks who have to be constrained lest they hurt others.

[MellowDem]

85. That picture shows their ignorance...

Attacking "capitalism" does shit. It's a vague concept. You could say that every form of economics and government kills. It just shows their stupidity and black and white worldview. To me, they are extremist idealists, which generally are the most useless ones.

[TBF]

89. How is it vague? What part don't you understand?

[MellowDem]

90. What about capitalism kills?

Things are more complicated than that. You could just as easily say "capitalism saves lives" or "capitalism improves quality of life" and technically be correct as well.

[TBF]

100. I see. The thing with capitalism is that it inherently kills by it's very nature.

Here is a good article that you may find informative - http://socialistworker.org/2008/12/05/the-great-crash-of-2008

It explains the production/crash cycles of capitalism really well.

[MellowDem]

127. It "inherently kills" huh?

Capitalism is an economic system, not something that inherently kills by its very nature. The "business cycle" that Marx was talking about is part of capitalism, but it is not necessarily deadly. And, if well regulated, the business cycle can be kept from having big swings that generate the boom and bust crisis.

As it is, socialism still relies on capitalism as its main economic force. Look at Europe. Capitalism, for all its flaws, also has a lot of upsides to it as well. To say "capitalism inherently kills" is a rather incomplete and innaccurate statement. For many, the upsides of capitalism outweigh the downside. And given that capitalism can be regulated, its not a system that needs to be (or ever will be) thrown out. Some of the staunchest supporters of capitalism today are former communist countries and they were very well versed in Marx. I think Marx had some good ideas about capitalism, but other things he said were pretty wrong or at the very least uninformed and oversimplified. To say that all value of a product is derived from labor is simply untrue and laughable. We know that that is not the case. Supply and demand have a bit to do with it for one thing.

And to completely ignore the upsides of capitalism is rather disingenous, isn't it? After all, the horrible "drive for technological progress" hasn't all been a bad thing? I'm sure you can think of a few other things as well that I wouldn't want the world to lose out on.

[TBF]

143. I do believe it kills by it's very nature -

there is no way to get ahead in capitalism without pushing other people down. You can argue regulation, safety nets, and that sort of thing but when the system itself relies on the labor of many to benefit the very few at the top something is inherently flawed in my view. I understand you may disagree with that, and think that it is worth it to have that chance to be at the very top of the heap.

"For many the upsides of capitalism outweigh the downside". I don't think you're talking about many minimum wage workers with that statement. Think about how many people go hungry in this world as you live in your big house, and drive your big cars. I'm not talking about you specifically, but our populace in general. You may be able to sleep at night when you know other people are getting laid off while you are getting raises, but it's difficult for me.

Others have told me capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best thing out there. They told me that about sorority rush too. Still, I refused to assimilate. I quit that sorority eventually, and I'm not about to defend capitalism when there is the chance we could build something better. We may have to agree to disagree, but that's how I see it.

[MellowDem]

144. That's ok

I'm just wondering what is the "something better" to build? And even minimum wage workers here in the US, for all the issues they face, have access to a lot of good things that they otherwise wouldn't have without capitalism. Poverty is a relative word, and living in poverty in the US is relatively better in general than in the rest of the world. In fact, the problem for many in poverty here isn't hunger so much as obesity. I do think we can do better by regulating capitalism more and having safety nets like national health care for all, but I don't see how scrapping the entire system will lead to something better.

The quality of life in the third world has steadily (and in some cases rapidly) been increasing over time. But that's the thing. It will take time to build an equitable world. And part of that is globalization. Globalization in the end will help equalize wealth, but you'd never know it from some people who think it is the end of the world, an attack on "American" jobs. Captialsim has led to an advancement of human society on a pace never seen before, but I think a lot of people take that for granted and become impatient. They see all these incredible advances in their lifetime and wonder how we aren't living in a utopia yet.

[TBF]

149. Globalization in the end will help equalize wealth -

we've finally found a point of agreement. I do think that globalization is key, capitalism just a stepping stone, because it will tear down the nation state barriers that will make socialism possible. :)

[MellowDem]

165. I suppose we are in agreement in general

perhaps it is the definition of words we have differences on. I see socialism as essentially regulated capitalism. Another good thing about interdependancy caused by globalization is the lack of widespread conventional warfare between economic powers. In many ways I think it helps keep the peace between nation states. Not to say that there won't be some painful changes for everyone, and the rate of that change is unlike anything ever seen before in the history of the world. So I don't blame those who are scared or mad at globalization.

[readmoreoften]

111. Capitalism is the extraction of profit from labor. That kills.

The only useful purpose it ever served was fighting monarchy. It took the wealth out of the hands of one family and spread it to hundreds of families, with thousands still in servitude. Because they must compete with one another for buyers, wealth comes from suppressing wages and extracting surplus value. The worker creates $25 worth of stuff but they only get 25c. Capitalists, by definition, do not produce anything: not goods, not ideas, nothing. They own and circulate stocks on the market. Period. Most people look at owner-operator capitalism as a model, but that is not capitalism. That is a worker-owned business. If I'm a web designer, I'm not a capitalist. I'm a worker earning some money. If I hire others, I'm a petty capitalist--a wannabe capitalist who takes loans from real capitalists to fulfill my dreams of grandeur. Sometimes it works out for the best, but there is absolutely no possibility that "I will work my way up to ruling class through my earnings" as the ideology claims. Beyond a few actors and sports figures, the plutocracy consist of old monarchs, banking families, and their minions. Every now and then, a pleb suck-up gets promoted. Everything we have, although protected until recently by the Democratic Party, was won by radical leftists. The 8 hour day was won by unions and the IWW. Social Security was a concession made to the then-powerful US Communist Party (CPUSA). There's a reason why they call us "communists." And there's a reason that our cowardly response to red-baiting has cut Americans off at the knees.

[MellowDem]

132. Capitalism does not equal class structure

No matter what economic model you have (including communism), there has always been and will always be a class system of sorts. It's not something inherently capitalistic, more humanistic. The good thing about capitalism is that even though there will still be a class structure in place and large gulfs between the top and bottom in wealth (like any large society), the drive for efficency and better technology can improve the well-being of all so that even the poorest are provided the basics. Now, socialist policies can go a step further by regulating capitalism and decreasing gaps in the class structure.

Capitalists are holders of capital. What they do with that capital definitely can produce stuff. A lot of production that goes on would not without investment from holders of capital. In fact, capitalists drive production based on risk and other factors. What to invest in is a big decision.

Socialism does not exist without capitalism, capitalism is not something inherently evil. Just like communism. It is a system and what we get out of it depends on what we do with it, not the system itself.

[blindpig]

190. Bollocks

Capitalism requires a capitalists class in order to function at all.

Humans existed without class for millenia, we shall again.

If capitalism is so fucking great why have the poor and working class been getting poorer since 1973?

Capitalists produce nothing, labor produces everything.

Socialism cannot exist with capitalism, it is capitalism's successor.

[MellowDem]

197. When have humans existed without class structures

in large societies? I can't think of one large society that had no class system in place. Hunter and gatherer tribes were not large enough to have a complicated class structure, but they still had tribal structures, and of course if you even go smaller there are family structures.

Capitalism does not require a class structure at all. Even in this society, the relatively poor can be capitalists. It's not the class structure that allows capitalism to survive.

As for the poor and working class getting poorer since 1973, you mean in the US. Worldwide, the poor and working class have seen great improvements in standard of living and the middle class has surged since 1973. That's because globalization is causing an overall increase in wealth throughout the world while also equalizing wealth. Given that the US is the greatest economic power, those equalizing forces will have a perceptively negative effect on our economy, especially for the poor and working class.

Labor cannot produce anything without capital. You need both for production.

Socialism is just regulated capitalism, with certain crucial industries being part of the State. All socialist countries have capitalism.

[blindpig]

200. You are either utterly confused, or something.

Of course capitalism requires class structure, that's what capitalism is, the few appropriating the labor of the many.

Poverty is more grinding now than ever. yes, small middle classes have arisen but a billion have been dispossessed of their traditional means of substance and thrown to the not so tender mercies of the money economy leaving them no choice but to accept miserable wages or starve entirely.

So tell me this, where did the capital come from in the first place?

It came from labor.

Socialism is not regulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism is capitalism. Socialism is what comes after capitalism.

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[MellowDem]

201. Capitalism is simply an economic system

where wealth is privately rather than publicly owned. You are a capitalist. Capitalism is not a class structure. Saying it over and over won't make it so.

How is poverty more grinding now than ever? How do you prove that? And how is it due to capitalism? Sure, industrialization can lead to massive changes within countries and temporary choas, but industrialization is not capitalism. Communist countries industrialized and people were "dispossessed of their traditional means of substance and thrown to the not so tender mercies of the state economy leaving them no choice but to accept miserable wages or starve entirely."

Capital is created with labor and other capital. You always need both.

Technically, socialism is an economic system where the state owns wealth and the means of production. Technically, we're all socialists and capitalists. You give some of your money to the state and some of the money you keep privately for yourself. So a "socialist state" in the real world has capitalist practices, as does a "capitalist state" have socialist practices. Since there are no pure socialist or capitalist countries out there, socialism has come to mean a country with regulated capitalism and some ownership by the state, just as a capitalist country in the real world involves a government that owns wealth and certain means of production. Social democrats advocate this type of economy. I would be more correct in saying we live in mixed economies. But the word socialism and capitalism in common language don't really conform to their book definitions much anymore.

According to Marx, socialism is the transition to communism and what comes after capitalism. But Marx was wrong on a lot of things. The mixed economies of socialism and capitalism are pretty much the only economic systems currently in existence in the vast majority of the world.

[blindpig]

213. no, no, no

In capitalism the capitalists owns the means of production wherein his wealth is derived. I do not own the means of production, therefore....

By and large people in the socialists states were much better off than under the previous regime, all basic needs were met including medical care and education. That was anything but the case during the previous regime.

Your understanding of capitalism and socialism could fit on the head of a pin with room to spare.

[MellowDem]

220. Please provide examples

of socialist states with no capitalism whatsoever that were much better off than under the previous regime, and how capitalism was the cause of their previous suffering.

If you own wealth, you can own means of production.

[blindpig]

225. Easy

How about the Soviet Union and Cuba? In either case the masses of people were miserable and illiterate during the previous regime. After the inception of the socialists regimes literacy, health, live births, longevity all spiked. And this despite the continual pressure of the capitalist nations.

Um, where does that wealth originate? Does it spring forth from the mind of John Galt or is it the result of labor?

[readmoreoften]

73. I'm not sure "peaceful war protests" are a good counter-argument since they've had zero effect.

Politicians fear the unrest of the G-7/8/20 protests. Big peaceful outpourings of liberal emotion literally achieve nothing. I'm not an anarchist. In fact, I spend at lot of time arguing with anarchists. But I have a lot more respect for the conviction of masked anarchists than I do of quiet liberals who think all they have the right to use is their "mighty voice" and if that doesn't work--fuck it, it's not their kids dying, they did "what they could."

Protesters wear balaclavas (masks) for good reason. The FBI take photos of them, work up data on them, and tail them--often for years--even if they've never so much as broken a window. Masks are protection from abuse and surveillance. They are now using interrogation tactics, violence, hooding, and stress positions on those who physically fall away from the "mainstream liberal" protests regardless of whether or not a crime is committed. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a2_1222363923

Why do you think economic justice will come about from peaceful protest? Do you think that wealthy imperialists have no idea what they're doing? That all we need to do is "talk it out" and they'll give us better wages or, say, stop buying up water supplies or employing disaster capitalism policies to take over the resources of smaller, weaker nations?

Personally, I'm for mass strikes and blockades. But the police consider even blockades as terrorism now. (Since the RNC 08). But the question isn't whether or not you "get" anarchists. The question is: what is your solution since you don't like "violence" (is breaking a window of a bank truly "violent"?) and since peaceful protests are a joke?

[Odin2005]

82. Yup, breaking windows and torching cars! that will show those evil imperialists! *SARCASM*

No, you are just making excuses for mindless violence.

[joshcryer]

86. We're talking about it, aren't we? Maybe then you might read a bit about anarchist history.

[readmoreoften]

105. Frankly, I think your attitude is every inch as sick and violent as those of Republicans.

I suppose you would have supported the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War. Considering the opposition were Anarchists.

Actually, it's you who are making excuses for mindless violence: no protest against bombing Pakistan or Afghanistan, no protest against the US and BANK-backed militias in Mexico who rape and kill. (See Paz y Justicia, School of the Americas, etc., etc.) And your concern is that the windows of multibillion dollar corporations don't get broken and no one gets burned in effigy. How touching. I guess its obvious where your sympathies lie.

I'm quite certain that history will put the blame squarely on the shoulders on so-called "pacifists" like yourselves. In reality, the only difference between Republicans and people like you is the tone of voice with which you spew your garbage. You're not a Nazi, you're just a "Good German." Anyone who gives a damn about anarchists breaking a window and burning an effigy isn't serious about justice.

Go worry about "octomom" or something.

[readmoreoften]

80. If there was no violent protest there would've been no gay rights movement.

Stonewall was a 6 day long riot against NYPD complete with molotov cocktails. The "pacifist" middle class protesters had achieved a sum total of nothing for two decades of struggle. Without Stonewall, there would have been no GLF or Harvey Milk.

[Odin2005]

84. "The ends justify the means" isn't a good argument, at least not a moral one.

[readmoreoften]

106. I didn't say the ends justified the means. The means AND the ends were justified.

If the ends don't justify the means, you better tell the Gestapo you're hiding a Jew in the closet next time they ask. Wouldn't want to save a life by lying--especially to an authority figure.

[Odin2005]

195. Totally stupid comparison.

comparing mere lying to violence is ridiculous.

[iamthebandfanman]

87. the irony of anarchists organising

is often to much for me to even give them much thought.


the majority dont know what it means, and just see it as a ticket to break things and be angry.


anarchism imagines a perfect world in which everyone is perfect and does no wrong...
hence no need for any organisation of government or laws...

unfortunately, humans are nowhere close to having and enjoying that level of personal responsibility ... let alone just co-existing with their neighbor without a law telling them they have to.

[Bjorn Against]

88. Actually anarchist philosophy depends on strong community organization.

What anarchists are opposed to is a centralized source of power, but community organizing is considered to be absolutely essential by most anarchists. I would suggest you read some Noam Chomsky as he gives a very good explanation of what anarchism is, you may not agree with everything he says but I think you would probably think very differently about anarchism after you read what he has to say about it.

[TBF]

97. There is individualistic anarchism and collective anarchism - a good place

to start would be to look it up and read about the differences.

[Bjorn Against]

99. This is true, I am aware of the differences.

When I think of anarchism I think of collective anarchism as pretty much all of the anarchists I have known have been collective anarchism. When you are looking at someone like the unibomber however he was clearly of the individualistic anarchist variety, it is usually not people like him who are at the protests however. It should also be noted that most of the anarchists who are at the protests are non-violent, while there are certainly violent anarchists they don't represent the majority of anarchists. Here is an interview with one of the great modern day anarchists Howard Zinn in which he explains anarchism; I think many of the people here who think anarchism is about nothing more than breaking stuff could learn a lot from what this man has to say: http://www.alternet.org/democracy/85427/

[TBF]

101. Thank you, that's a great resource. I particularly like this part of the interview-

"Howard Zinn: No doubt! No doubt that anarchist ideas are frightening to those in power. People in power can tolerate liberal ideas. They can tolerate ideas that call for reforms, but they cannot tolerate the idea that there will be no state, no central authority. So it is very important for them to ridicule the idea of anarchism to create this impression of anarchism as violent and chaotic. It is useful for them, yes."

[Echo In Light]

163. There was a comp of Chomsky's essays, speeches and interviews re anarchism a few yrs back

It's a good read.

[Odin2005]

192. That is exactly the problem I have with Anarchism, top-down coercion is sometimes needed...

...to get things done. Every anarchist rejection of even occasional top-down coercion smacks of utopian "humans are inherently good" balderdash.

[killbotfactory]

116. Anarchism isn't against organization.

It's against a hierarchical organization. The whole point is to prevent a handful of flawed people from controlling and abusing the power of a state.

[WestSeattle2]

92. What's to get?

They're uneducated losers who have nothing, and feel "empowered" when destroying the property of others. They're really no better than wife-beaters. If they were men, they wouldn't hide their faces. Their idiotic actions underscore their inability to communicate in forums where intelligence, critical thinking, and the ability to reason, are used to persuade others to embrace and support your policy positions.

Some will eventually wise-up, grow-up, and man-up, but most won't.

Life-long losers.

[xchrom]

95. this thread is a great example of why -- at least some americans --

can't get angry in the same fashion as the europeans and take to the streets with that anger.

here we see the pale and weak reaction of 'liberals' for the protests in england -- the feigned concern for the actions of a few.

it's all so -- neutered somehow.

we should all be this angry over the economy -- the bailouts of the Financials -- shipping jobs over seas.

until our poilitical 'leaders' see and feel the anger of the people -- they will to a certain extent continue to protect those who
hurting the people.

no -- i'm not into anarchy as a political stance -- but i'm that damn angry.

[joshcryer]

104. Americans are complacant fools, generally speaking. They never went through the same history...

...as our fellows overseas, thus they lack a proper context for this sort of things. Granted, I still think the American anarchist movement is superior as far as diversity goes, for the simple fact that it has had to adapt under these circumstances.

[lonestarnot]

110. Brilliant observation!

and me too! damned angry! Again!

[chrisa]

151. Smashing stuff doesn't = Protesting.

It's a bunch of angry criminals destroying other people's things because protesting effectively is too hard and creative for them.

[xchrom]

155. but the Financials can smash and steal right?

nothing to be down right pissed about there.

[chrisa]

159. If you act exactly like the people you're against,

using the justification that they do it too, what have you become? Is there even a point of protesting them anymore at that point?

[xchrom]

160. useless sophistry.

there's little point in doing a lot of things.

[Badlands Democrat]

98. Why So Serious?

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order. And everything becomes chaos. And you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

I agree with you, but I loves me my Joker.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

109. Anyone here

wish to actually discuss anarchist principles/philosophy or is this just a thread to perpetuate status quo propaganda about anarchism?

For sure let us ignore provocateurs, and COINTELPRO and THE CIA, and NSA and THE PENTAGON and the entire NATIONAL SECURITY STATE and concern ourselves with those pesky rock throwers.

[readmoreoften]

112. Nope. Basically the thread is about perpetuating status quo propaganda about anarchism.

More garbage from the "Windows are People Too" contingency.

[leftstreet]

117. "Windows are People Too"

:spray:

(I shouldn't laugh, but damn that's funneh.)

Agree though. These threads are all about advancing the status quo propaganda about anarchism.

[killbotfactory]

115. I don't understand it

We read about things like the Boston tea party and celebrate the events, and a couple people break windows in the face of massive fraud and injustice that will end up killing or impoverishing millions and act outraged that anyone could be so uncouth.

Would the union movement that created the middle class have lasted a second if they weren't willing to fight back against state and corporate violence and just let themselves be martyred indefinitely?

[anonymous171]

113. Anarchists are an interesting bunch. nt

[killbotfactory]

114. Oh my!

A few windows broken and a handful of rowdy protesters vs. bankers and politicians making trillions of dollars disappear and using the power of the state to protect their racket and pay for their mistakes.

I know what I'm outraged about!

[Hanse]

119. They're kind of like goths. Only political.

They like to dress in black and make a show of scaring old people. But they typically just outgrow that phase sooner or later.

[TheWatcher]

147. Yes, and we like to drink your children's blood when you're not looking.

Just another ignorant, broad brush post by someone who doesn't know a goddamn thing about the particular group of people he is talking about.

Asshat. :eyes:

[Jennicut]

120. I get the anger, I get the protesting against the government, I don't get anarchy

Socialism I do get. Its laws and government. I get any socialist wanting to protest against capitalism. But anarchists just hate govt. for it being govt. Overthrow the system...into what? How would people live their lives without laws and rules? Peacefully? Get this, as humans we are naturally inclined to follow a strong leader. Anarchists would naturally gravitate towards one and anarchy would be over. An oligarchy would develop.

By the way, people should go see The Watchmen. It really made me sit and think about who was right- the corpratist liar who somehow stopped nuclear war or the libertarian anarchist who wanted nothing but the truth out but risked the war starting up. Or the superhuman man who saw both sides but had to make a decision as to which one he would support. It was very interesting stuff. The author of the graphic novel the movie is based on is an anarchist.

[Mr. Hyde]

121. The anarchists have a point. civilization would be better off without government.

Governments are a tool of the aristocrats used to impose their will over a large group of people that would otherwise not tolerate their bullshit. This is the way it has always been and this is the way it will always be. I salute the anarchists and raise my glass in their honor.
:toast:

[SeattleGirl]

124. Hmmm, so you'd like to see the country turned into a giant trash

heap, just so prove a point?

Lots of people, including me, know there are all kinds of things wrong with government, but giving people like the anarchists (the ones who like to trash things just for the sake of trashing them, it seems) free reign is not a good idea either.

Go ahead and salute. I just hope you brought your shovel and a trash can to clean up the mess they leave behind.

[Mr. Hyde]

134. some would argue that it has already become a giant trash heap

thanks primarily to the government and the decisions it has made on our behalf. The earth itself has become a giant trash heap because of the governments of earth, not because of the anarchists of earth whether they be they democratic, socialist, communist, fascist, oligarchies, plutocracies, monarchies, theocracies, or whatever. They all exist to serve themselves and to exploit others. I despise them all. They are a plague on mankind.

[Raskolnik]

131. How's that working out in Somalia? n/t

[Mr. Hyde]

135. well, it isn't true anarchy there is it. There isn't an absence of government

as a warlord is, in fact, a military dictator.

[Raskolnik]

137. That's because Somalia exists in the real world, where men with guns tend to fill power vacuums. n/t

[G_j]

138. using Somalia as an example of anarchy is ridiculous

at least there is zero connection to the political philosophies of Anarchy that are supposedly being "discussed" here.

[Raskolnik]

140. I used Somalia as a counter-example to the statement "civilization would be better off

without government." If one truly thinks that is the case, one should be prepared to discuss examples of places that lack a functioning government.

[Odin2005]

157. That's because the political philosophical conceptions have lost touch with reality.

You can promote a political belief until you are blue in the face, but if it goes against the realities of human nature it is doomed to fail.

[Echo In Light]

166. ...or, if it goes against the prevailing ideologies people are indoctrinated into believing/exalting

[Odin2005]

167. People are inherwently perfect and only indoctrinated into thinking they aren't, eh? BS!!!

Typical BS argument by dogmatic ideologues, dismiss anything that disagrees with your dogma as propaganda. Marxists, Anarchists, and Libertarians do such BS all the time. That kind of thinking is inherently totalitarian.

[Echo In Light]

168. The point is, anyone will be influenced by the prevailing public opinions of their time/locale

And since the framework of such a predominant point of view here in the U.S. stems from vested interests, it's easy to understand why so many obediently abide the pro-corporate/state/military bullshit one finds in abundance within the national, mainstream info/news outlets. And yes, this does explain a great deal of the substance of average public opinion in America ... not in any absolute sense, but that isn't the point.

I never said or implied that a wide array of political philosophies don't have their own forms of propaganda. I'm merely making a very pedestrian sociological observation.

[Odin2005]

154. No government = no civilization.

government is an unavoidable result of complex human societies. That is the problem with Anarchists, they let their dreams of Utopia delude them. All the proposed "anarchist societies" I have seen are inherently unstable, and would collapse into oligarchy of some sort as a result of cliques in society or by gangsterism (Aristocracy is derived from institutionalized gangsterism).

[Mr. Hyde]

182. All the proposed "anarchist societies" I have seen are inherently unstable, and would collapse into

oligarchy of some sort as a result of cliques in society or by gangsterism (Aristocracy is derived from institutionalized gangsterism)".

and that is differnt from what we have with organized governments how exactly?

[Odin2005]

191. The point being you can't get rid of government, you can only try to minimize...

negative aspects of it. Getting rid of government does not give one utopia; it simply removes any restrains there were on the cliques and gangsters.

[BoneDaddy]

129. Anarchists have as much violence in them

if not more than the people they "protest" against. Time to grow up out of their adolescent anger and stop using "causes" to justify their pitiful existence.

[Downtown Hound]

178. You're equating a few broken windows with the deaths of a million Iraqis?

You have about as much propaganda in you as the people this board is designed to fight against.

[BoneDaddy]

183. No, not at all

so I put anarchists way down at the bottom of my list of aggregious offenders. Psychologically and emotionally, however, I find they are often very similar.

[Downtown Hound]

204. Is somebody that gets in a fist fight the same as a serial killer?

Basically what you're saying is that all violence is the same. First of all, anarchists don't commit violence against people. They commit vandalism against certain targets, often very oppressive ones if one was to look into their practices.

The attitude being displayed by you is one shared by many liberals. Mainly that a human being has no right to use any kind of force when standing up to oppression. If one crosses the line from "peaceful" civil disobedience into property destruction, then that person is really Atilla the Hun underneath. I call bullshit. I think that's an attitude espoused by those that use pacifism as a cover to hide behind and justify not taking any real direct action or face any serious consequences.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the anarchist's tactics of property destruction. Oh, sometimes I blow off steam and say, yeah, go ahead, break that mother fucking window, but deep down I don't think it really solves anything. But I don't condemn those that do either. Of all the protesters I've marched with, the anarchists are the ones that risk the most and have done more to oppose Bush and his tyranny than any peaceful protester passively holding a sign that I've ever seen. And this idea that an anarchist that breaks the window of a bank is the same as a dictator that invades another country for resource extraction is total horseshit. It's simplistic thinking done by those that are uncomfortable with the idea that violence just might be acceptable from time to time.

And another thing. Civil disobedience is often not peaceful. Liberals love to pretend that there's no violence in blocking an entrance to Halliburton or General Dynamics or the gates of the RNC, but there is. If you infringe on the free movement and rights of others to assemble as they choose, then you are, in effect, committing violence against them. Now personally, I have no problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans and the war whore corporations deserve not only that but a hell of a lot more. But don't pretend that it's all peace and love, because it ain't. The line between blocking an entrance or a street or trespassing and refusing to leave and breaking a window is very thin.

[Political Heretic]

139. It's always better when the oppressed don't fight back, isn't it?

[cali]

141. the oppressed my ass.

not only have I spent quite a bit of time reading brit blogs this morning, many from those who participated, but I spoke to someone I know in London who participated in the Climate Change protest. According to many, these were hardly the oppressed. Furthermore, I also read that quite a few of those into the violence/melee thing were simply drunken assholes, in it for the thrill.

And you do no service to those who were there marching and protesting peacefully when you praise those who endanger them.

[JerseygirlCT]

142. I was sickened watching some of the protestors yesterday

Random, ugly violence. Childish temper tantrums. Destruction of property and harm to lives - for what?

Idiots.

[step up]

152. Because the other way hasn't worked?

I am against violence of any sort, but it does seem to get one's attention, now doesn't it? (And for the record, destruction of a public building seems a bit different than torching someone's car while they are in it.)

[JerseygirlCT]

162. That's just silliness talking, I'm afraid.

Violence isn't going to solve a thing. It might exercise some frustration, but it most definitely won't persuade anyone to their way of seeing things. It wins you more enemies,and if the goal is to put forward alternate ideas, it's a darn stupid way to go about it.

[chrisa]

187. It doesn't..

It just makes people think that you're a bunch of animals, completely overlooking your cause.

[Echo In Light]

146. *

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3810817&mesg_id=3810817

[juno jones]

148. The bankers jeering the crowds and waving

ten pound notes couldn't have been just a little provacative?

I think I would have blown their house down too.

Jump Fuckers!

I dance at this revolution or else. Thanks, Emma.

[step up]

150. You don't smell a rat here? I do...

How were they even allowed to get close enough to the Bank of England to smash the windows?! Sounds like they wanted to allow so-called anarchists to do their thing, or perhaps it's the work of "others" pretending to be anarchists...Remember that in the past, things like this have occurred to discredit legitimate protests. One example is the Haymarket Riots, which gave a bad name to Socialists from there on in.

[earth mom]

161. How does anyone know if those so called "anarchists" aren't plants to make the peaceful protesters

look bad?

* & Co pulled that shit in Florida and during some protests in Washington DC didn't they?

:tinfoilhat:

[Lilith Velkor]

171. I know DC anarchists

During B*sh, the only time they broke anything was the one time in 2003 when all the cops were at the anti-war rally, and they bum-rushed the World Bank.

They weren't "plants" like most DUers drone on about so monotonously, they were TEENAGERS.

Sometimes it seems like everybody here has forgotten what it's like to be one.

edit: clarity, man, clarity

[Djinn]

224. after the S11 protests in Melbourne

I could never work out how the coppers swarming the place could manage to arrest anyone that looked at them sideways but somehow failed to catch people (always called anarchists, like anyone labeling them that even know what it means) who were filmed smashing windows right in front of a pile of coppers and TV cameras???

Somehow they didn't seem so keen on catching them, certainly were handy for propaganda purposes - though I'm sure our fine upstanding constabulary were simple caught unaware that property damage was a much easier charge to get to stick than the various "affray" charges they'd thrown at random lefties.

[specimenfred1984]

164. "Say what you will about the tenants of National Socialism..."

"But at least it's an ethos!"

[slampoet]

193. THERE ARE NO ANARCHISTS. Only undercover cops and angry teens egged on by the cops.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

194. It's Quite Simple: Most Anarchists Lack Any Critical Thinking Ability.

When one has not the ability to think deeply, one is more apt to ACT impulsively. It is this lack of depth of thought amongst many anarchists that cause them to ACT in a reckless, mindless, counter-productive, violent, destructive, ignorant and/or childish manner.

It really is quite that simple.

[joshcryer]

223. I do not think you can qualify as an anarchist unless you have at least a basic understanding of...

...the ideas.

There are inarguably a lot of kids who know that their professor or that other kids hang out and discuss anarchist theory, yet whom ascribe a certain behavior and tactic to anarchism.

These 'anarchists' cease being anarchists after awhile, this is indisputable because if even half of these 'anarchists' 'stayed anarchist' our numbers would double every decade.