|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:54 pm
Sri Iskander SoViEtTaNkT34 Sri Iskander SoViEtTaNkT34 Sri Iskander Various things. I cook and donate what food I have to people in need. I provide transportation to people without any. I volunteer with local autism support groups (I get to meet an autistic Hindu priest on Friday). I volunteer my meager graphics and writing skills to groups. I've loaned my futon to people who have need of a place to stay. All Humanist bullshit that really doesnt do much for rev For an advocate of Direct democracy I dont see "am part of local government" First of all, I'm not going to be an idiot and post any possibly illegal activities I participate in on some internet forum, where people I don't know can read it. Yeah. I listed some very nice, legal, activities that I do. That's all you're getting from me. Second, I've just moved States within the last few months, and I haven't become involved politically just yet. I also doubt any local government is going to be democratic. It's just some more people governing other people. ******** that s**t. 1.All of which have add nothing to a rev just self gratification. 2. Depending where you moved depends upon what system and yes they are democratic and yes people do govern unless your a petty anarchist which even then more often or not a council system is formed instantaneously. 1. I will repeat myself. "I'm not going to be an idiot and post any possibly illegal activities I participate in on some internet forum, where people I don't know can read it." Please read that. Please comprehend its meaning. I will make it simpler for you now. "Any acts of violent or 'unlawful' revolution I've engaged in will not be posted here, as it would be a simple thing for these forums to be read by anyone at all. I do not know you, and will not trust my remaining free of legal harassment to you." 2. Representation is not democracy. I will not participate in a representative ******** no more than I will participate in a corporation. If you're willing to abandon your ideals so you'll look better in a stranger's eyes, that's your weakness, not mine. I get what your saying and thats fine but your still a anarchist in which case I really dont care about random acts of anarchism. I still love that you view even Soviets as ******** lmfao I havent abandon any of my ideals ive just been consolidating which I find no weakness as a strategy in comparison to what you suggest of random acts of anarchism that still do nothing unless your planning a cyber attack on a nuclear facility then you good sir have peaked my interest, otherwise no. Random is Random and having Random acts of anarchism instead of a consolidated movement is not what my ideals strive for.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:47 pm
Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 There is no such thing as "free" even within the wilderness that you speak of. Why? Because the lands will be "owned" by the government, or because humanity will inevitably encroach on the lands these people would live on? Then it would be no different than what happened to people in the past, would it? Just because people believe something you believe is destined to fail, does not make it so, either. Not my point. Freedom doesnt exist for humans depend upon a social environment, the best example of this is simply the fact that you speak/type/write the English Language. To be free is to be without limits from a given social network is just impossible. What do you believe that I believe? Seriously..... Read, write, and speak english because I am NOT free. I am proposing that once the capitalists crumble under their own fascist regime, I may be truly free to be an anarchist at heart, to truly give up all things that make me bound by society. Clothes, speech. I wasn't saying I would live with a tribe of indians. I was meaning I would be on my own. However, I am still young. This is what I hold in my heart to be the truest bliss, not the most LOGICAL thing in the world. To me, the most logical thing is to help overthrow capitalism wherever it may be, and replace/uproot it and help instill a socialist/communist government in it's place. Right now, I'm reading up, AS A NEW MEMBER, the difference between the two. As I can tell, socialism is authoritarian and close to fascist, where as communism is the happy medium between it and capitalism. I am not fully aware of what socialism is, per se, or communism. But I have a vague idea of communism, liberation of the modern day indentured servant. What do i believe you believe? I believe you are smug. I believe you believe all things must be given to people to give them purpose, they must be told what to do and how to do it in order to survive, that people must have a government. What that government is exactly, I wouldn't know, you enlighten me. You have your liberal definitions mixed up. Socialism and communism in the communist sense of the words are essentially stage 1 and stage 2 and are not State Capitalists such as found in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:16 pm
SoViEtTaNkT34 Sri Iskander SoViEtTaNkT34 Sri Iskander SoViEtTaNkT34 Sri Iskander Various things. I cook and donate what food I have to people in need. I provide transportation to people without any. I volunteer with local autism support groups (I get to meet an autistic Hindu priest on Friday). I volunteer my meager graphics and writing skills to groups. I've loaned my futon to people who have need of a place to stay. All Humanist bullshit that really doesnt do much for rev For an advocate of Direct democracy I dont see "am part of local government" First of all, I'm not going to be an idiot and post any possibly illegal activities I participate in on some internet forum, where people I don't know can read it. Yeah. I listed some very nice, legal, activities that I do. That's all you're getting from me. Second, I've just moved States within the last few months, and I haven't become involved politically just yet. I also doubt any local government is going to be democratic. It's just some more people governing other people. ******** that s**t. 1.All of which have add nothing to a rev just self gratification. 2. Depending where you moved depends upon what system and yes they are democratic and yes people do govern unless your a petty anarchist which even then more often or not a council system is formed instantaneously. 1. I will repeat myself. "I'm not going to be an idiot and post any possibly illegal activities I participate in on some internet forum, where people I don't know can read it." Please read that. Please comprehend its meaning. I will make it simpler for you now. "Any acts of violent or 'unlawful' revolution I've engaged in will not be posted here, as it would be a simple thing for these forums to be read by anyone at all. I do not know you, and will not trust my remaining free of legal harassment to you." 2. Representation is not democracy. I will not participate in a representative ******** no more than I will participate in a corporation. If you're willing to abandon your ideals so you'll look better in a stranger's eyes, that's your weakness, not mine. I get what your saying and thats fine but your still a anarchist in which case I really dont care about random acts of anarchism. I still love that you view even Soviets as ******** lmfao I havent abandon any of my ideals ive just been consolidating which I find no weakness as a strategy in comparison to what you suggest of random acts of anarchism that still do nothing unless your planning a cyber attack on a nuclear facility then you good sir have peaked my interest, otherwise no. Random is Random and having Random acts of anarchism instead of a consolidated movement is not what my ideals strive for. Y'know, you're right. I'm an anarchist. I've never denied this (except when I wasn't one >_>). I hate the State just as much as I hate the capitalists. The State has been an even bigger tool in oppressing the people than economics. Just because I'm an anarchist, though, doesn't mean I go around randomly committing tiny acts with no look to the future. Contrary to popular belief, we anarchists DO form groups and movements, and we do plan. There is nothing random about what I do. It is well planned, and within a framework of fellow anarchists, moving forward to what we view as an ideal society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:23 pm
SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 There is no such thing as "free" even within the wilderness that you speak of. Why? Because the lands will be "owned" by the government, or because humanity will inevitably encroach on the lands these people would live on? Then it would be no different than what happened to people in the past, would it? Just because people believe something you believe is destined to fail, does not make it so, either. Not my point. Freedom doesnt exist for humans depend upon a social environment, the best example of this is simply the fact that you speak/type/write the English Language. To be free is to be without limits from a given social network is just impossible. What do you believe that I believe? Seriously..... Read, write, and speak english because I am NOT free. I am proposing that once the capitalists crumble under their own fascist regime, I may be truly free to be an anarchist at heart, to truly give up all things that make me bound by society. Clothes, speech. I wasn't saying I would live with a tribe of indians. I was meaning I would be on my own. However, I am still young. This is what I hold in my heart to be the truest bliss, not the most LOGICAL thing in the world. To me, the most logical thing is to help overthrow capitalism wherever it may be, and replace/uproot it and help instill a socialist/communist government in it's place. Right now, I'm reading up, AS A NEW MEMBER, the difference between the two. As I can tell, socialism is authoritarian and close to fascist, where as communism is the happy medium between it and capitalism. I am not fully aware of what socialism is, per se, or communism. But I have a vague idea of communism, liberation of the modern day indentured servant. What do i believe you believe? I believe you are smug. I believe you believe all things must be given to people to give them purpose, they must be told what to do and how to do it in order to survive, that people must have a government. What that government is exactly, I wouldn't know, you enlighten me. You have your liberal definitions mixed up. Socialism and communism in the communist sense of the words are essentially stage 1 and stage 2 and are not State Capitalists such as found in Europe. So, in the theory on how to bring about communism, the first part is to progress our current government towards a socialism, and then overthrow that government with a communism? Or is it slowly alter capitalism until it is so indistinguishable from socialism that it becomes socialism, and then just do the same towards communism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:26 am
Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 There is no such thing as "free" even within the wilderness that you speak of. Why? Because the lands will be "owned" by the government, or because humanity will inevitably encroach on the lands these people would live on? Then it would be no different than what happened to people in the past, would it? Just because people believe something you believe is destined to fail, does not make it so, either. Not my point. Freedom doesnt exist for humans depend upon a social environment, the best example of this is simply the fact that you speak/type/write the English Language. To be free is to be without limits from a given social network is just impossible. What do you believe that I believe? Seriously..... Read, write, and speak english because I am NOT free. I am proposing that once the capitalists crumble under their own fascist regime, I may be truly free to be an anarchist at heart, to truly give up all things that make me bound by society. Clothes, speech. I wasn't saying I would live with a tribe of indians. I was meaning I would be on my own. However, I am still young. This is what I hold in my heart to be the truest bliss, not the most LOGICAL thing in the world. To me, the most logical thing is to help overthrow capitalism wherever it may be, and replace/uproot it and help instill a socialist/communist government in it's place. Right now, I'm reading up, AS A NEW MEMBER, the difference between the two. As I can tell, socialism is authoritarian and close to fascist, where as communism is the happy medium between it and capitalism. I am not fully aware of what socialism is, per se, or communism. But I have a vague idea of communism, liberation of the modern day indentured servant. What do i believe you believe? I believe you are smug. I believe you believe all things must be given to people to give them purpose, they must be told what to do and how to do it in order to survive, that people must have a government. What that government is exactly, I wouldn't know, you enlighten me. You have your liberal definitions mixed up. Socialism and communism in the communist sense of the words are essentially stage 1 and stage 2 and are not State Capitalists such as found in Europe. So, in the theory on how to bring about communism, the first part is to progress our current government towards a socialism, and then overthrow that government with a communism? Or is it slowly alter capitalism until it is so indistinguishable from socialism that it becomes socialism, and then just do the same towards communism? Nah. Socialism is what is created post rev. What it seems your talking about is State Capitalism which is different then socialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:26 am
SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Not my point. Freedom doesnt exist for humans depend upon a social environment, the best example of this is simply the fact that you speak/type/write the English Language. To be free is to be without limits from a given social network is just impossible. What do you believe that I believe? Seriously..... Read, write, and speak english because I am NOT free. I am proposing that once the capitalists crumble under their own fascist regime, I may be truly free to be an anarchist at heart, to truly give up all things that make me bound by society. Clothes, speech. I wasn't saying I would live with a tribe of indians. I was meaning I would be on my own. However, I am still young. This is what I hold in my heart to be the truest bliss, not the most LOGICAL thing in the world. To me, the most logical thing is to help overthrow capitalism wherever it may be, and replace/uproot it and help instill a socialist/communist government in it's place. Right now, I'm reading up, AS A NEW MEMBER, the difference between the two. As I can tell, socialism is authoritarian and close to fascist, where as communism is the happy medium between it and capitalism. I am not fully aware of what socialism is, per se, or communism. But I have a vague idea of communism, liberation of the modern day indentured servant. What do i believe you believe? I believe you are smug. I believe you believe all things must be given to people to give them purpose, they must be told what to do and how to do it in order to survive, that people must have a government. What that government is exactly, I wouldn't know, you enlighten me. You have your liberal definitions mixed up. Socialism and communism in the communist sense of the words are essentially stage 1 and stage 2 and are not State Capitalists such as found in Europe. So, in the theory on how to bring about communism, the first part is to progress our current government towards a socialism, and then overthrow that government with a communism? Or is it slowly alter capitalism until it is so indistinguishable from socialism that it becomes socialism, and then just do the same towards communism? Nah. Socialism is what is created post rev. What it seems your talking about is State Capitalism which is different then socialism. So we create socialism, and communism is achieved when all the developed nations of the world become socialist, too, and that combined socialism is communism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:45 pm
OK, so here is what I'm wondering: As an anarchist, why do you support the greenies in Iran?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:56 pm
Gracchvs Robespierre OK, so here is what I'm wondering: As an anarchist, why do you support the greenies in Iran? I'm generally against any State becoming more oppressive, and I don't like it when citizens get beat down and killed in the streets for attempting to protect what little freedom they have. I don't support the politician they voted for, nor the parties represented within the election, but the people themselves have my support against the oppression that was heaped on them during the protests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:49 pm
Sri Iskander Gracchvs Robespierre OK, so here is what I'm wondering: As an anarchist, why do you support the greenies in Iran? I'm generally against any State becoming more oppressive, and I don't like it when citizens get beat down and killed in the streets for attempting to protect what little freedom they have. I don't support the politician they voted for, nor the parties represented within the election, but the people themselves have my support against the oppression that was heaped on them during the protests. So... "I don't support who they support, but I support them"? I don't want to imply politics upon you which you don't have, but that seems contradictory. Wouldn't an anarchist pick no side in this conflict? It seems to be merely a cliquist struggle among the clergy, one side of which is supported by students and educated elements, the other side is supported by the state apparatus and the men of the bazzars. Rather than 'support' the greens, I would call for the independence of the working class (as a communist of course), and while such has no practical effect, considering my lack of knowledge of Farsi, I still find it unprincipled to proclaim support for one side or another in this conflict. I guess an analogy would be the Islamic 'Revolution.' That was supported by a huge portion of the population, even stupidly and suicidally by the Iranian Left. But would you have called for support to them against the violence of the Shah, or would you have called for the formation of an independent movement? (This in no way implies a sacntion of the violence of the capitalist state, or a refusal to denounce and call for struggle against it, but rather calls for struggle along different lines and under different leadership, and with different aims.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:14 am
Oh, but I do call for independence (not of the working class, but of all people) for all nations, no matter what. wink
If the greens win, then they've damaged the State. The use of oppressive violence will have been made illegitimate in the eyes of the population, and any government they form will not be able to use it as a tool. That's a step forward. It's an erosion of the State's powers.
Besides, what better time to start an anarchist revolution? The youth were mobilized, angry, and willing to fight against the State. It's not far from that to convincing them to do away with the State altogether. Easier, at least, than convincing the sedentary populations of the West to fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:20 am
Sri Iskander Oh, but I do call for independence (not of the working class, but of all people) for all nations, no matter what. wink If the greens win, then they've damaged the State. The use of oppressive violence will have been made illegitimate in the eyes of the population, and any government they form will not be able to use it as a tool. That's a step forward. It's an erosion of the State's powers. Besides, what better time to start an anarchist revolution? The youth were mobilized, angry, and willing to fight against the State. It's not far from that to convincing them to do away with the State altogether. Easier, at least, than convincing the sedentary populations of the West to fight. Revolutions, if they are not to put hands in the power of another capitalist group (or in most countries, the social democrats), must be made consciously by the masses. That is, those making the revolution must know what they are doing. It is comparatively easy to overthrow the state. The problem is maintaining the conquests. Making sure that no state arises out of the situation is just silly, because you will need some way to enforce it, and some way to hold down the capitalists if they should choose to ******** things up. Of course, if you call the state anything other than 'a body which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force' then you can formulate it as you like, butif you accept that definition (and I believe it is the definition that anarchists use), then there is nothing else, but to conclude the necessity of establishing workers councils and workers militias for the purpose of the seizure of power and the maintanence of the revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:49 am
Not quite my definition of State. I go further and include all its coercive elements. wink
As for worker's councils, I don't care about them. I don't care what you call things. I very simply call for direct, participatory, democracy. Preferably broken down to the community level, and gradually building up to national levels. I don't care if it's organized into worker's councils, community councils, community debates (with individual voting afterward), or anything else so long as it maintains the democratic aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:18 am
Sri Iskander Not quite my definition of State. I go further and include all its coercive elements. wink As for worker's councils, I don't care about them. I don't care what you call things. I very simply call for direct, participatory, democracy. Preferably broken down to the community level, and gradually building up to national levels. I don't care if it's organized into worker's councils, community councils, community debates (with individual voting afterward), or anything else so long as it maintains the democratic aspect. Um... 'legitimate use of violence' includes military and the police and s**t... I don't know how much further you can go... My point about workers councils is that they would be the ruling body of society, no matter how democratic they are, and having control of workers militias, they would hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and coercion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:53 am
I happen to include economic means in my definition of the State. Quote: Noun Singular coercion Plural coercions coercion (plural coercions) 1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. 2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will. And here we have the definition of coercion. You'll note that a cooperative society based on mutual agreement is not, in fact, coercion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:06 am
Sri Iskander I happen to include economic means in my definition of the State. Quote: Noun Singular coercion Plural coercions coercion (plural coercions) 1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. 2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will. And here we have the definition of coercion. You'll note that a cooperative society based on mutual agreement is not, in fact, coercion. Shooting the exploiters, however, is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
