so how were they not violent and radical?Originally Posted by xGriffox
so how were they not violent and radical?
I understand anarchism fine, you are moulding the tenants of anarchism to fit your idealistic and unrealistic view of the world.
Later Days
I'm glad you have such a high opinion of him, but I'd still have to doubt someone's qualifications if they're completely self taught since there's no real easy well to tell that someone is qualified without an independent and unbiased source such as a degree or a qualification.
I said successful.Though i have used this example already and though it was some years back, the Black Panther Party served this role for a decent period of time before they were picked off by the powers that be.
I guess you didn't read what I said.The fact that you are considering locking a human being away for a quarter century for a non-violent crime astounds me.
I was arguing that they are oppressing people in the name of the law in the same way they are helping them.
The Green Scare (currently still going on), The G8 Summit in '99, Sean Bell being shot over 50 times, the individual shot and killed whilst handcuffed in Oakland, the murder of union organizers by Coca-Cola, the already mentioned destruction of homes and murder of lower-class South Koreans, the continued targeting of radicals by governments world wide, and so much more than i can come up with just from memory.Can you also use things that are at least within the last 20 years if you're going to use them for examples
It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.
really? tell me in which way i am corrupting the ideals of anarchism.
It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.
but they aren't. Using the authority that the people gave them to protect them is totally separate from the abuses of the system you're talking about.
and these all pale in comparison to the number of lives and property that are protected daily on a global level, you just ignore that because it doesn't fit your agenda. In most of those cases where the people responsible acting according to the law? No, they weren't. They broke the law and were punished for it. They weren't rewarded for it, which for your point to be valid, they'd have to be.The Green Scare (currently still going on), The G8 Summit in '99, Sean Bell being shot over 50 times, the individual shot and killed whilst handcuffed in Oakland, the murder of union organizers by Coca-Cola, the already mentioned destruction of homes and murder of lower-class South Koreans, the continued targeting of radicals by governments world wide, and so much more than i can come up with just from memory.
how is burning a car non-violent?
I believe that was the original idea from Bakoenin, what i heard he was one of the founding people of the anarchistic ideas.
That idea was probably formulated for a good purpose but ,it has been said before, its pretty naive. It would demand of every human being to treat another like they'd be treaten themselves. (where did i hear that before... the Bible perhaps?)
Another scenario could follow the basic rule of the strongest, but then again the strongest would want more power and you'd end up in a system all along.
Stop at nothing,
Live your dreams.
I like the idea, no affence to anybody who doesn't, but I think that the whole idea of "only the strong shall survive" is the totally best way to express idividualality.
Tears don't fall amd crash around me
Very true. Most "anarchists" iv met could only loosely be called such, I personally do not consider armchair anarchists as true advocates of there chosen political ideal.
The idea of only the strong survive is the mindset of the fascist, the Nazi and the totalitarian. When only the strong survive, the weak must die. Not fail to succeed, but must die. The disabled child, the mentally challenged, those with an IQ below average and the many other situations people cannot control, why should these result in there death? Why is it right for us as a spectacularly advanced species to leave anyone behind? We have the technology to end world hunger. To house every family and educate every child. But we don't. Because of the idea that only the strong survive. There is no reason for hardships in this world other than sickness and death and even sickness is one that we have beaten down to a minimum, but one human sees it fit to deny another the right to access of it. Did the inventor of the drug or treatment think to him self "Now to hoard these drugs and scientific miracles"? No. The business man did. The government man did. And on what basis? They are valuable. They can make money. What about the mother with no husband or partner to support her? Will she work her days so her and her child can barely survive, and then who will raise the child? Who will pay for school?
In this environment, how can any individuality be expressed? Who has decided what is strong? Don't you need to conform to this in order to survive? When a man decides that instead of working, he will dedicate his life to art, who will pick up there bill? Seems to me in a strong survive society, there is no room for this man. What about the musician? In order to get work to live they need to have an audience. Where is the individuality when they must conform to the marketable sound? Even the individual them selves, must not they dress appropriately to get a job to work in the strong survive world? No self expression allowed in this world.
Last edited by Sociocidal; 05-04-2009 at 01:53 PM.
Anarchism could work.
I also refuse to debate it, i am sick of being interrogated every time i voice an opinion.
FUCK
Yeah but that just looks like you can't back your opinion up. You want to say it can work but won't explain how it can work and wont explain why the reasons people are saying it won't work are wrong.
I don't see why you have such a problem with people questioning opinions you voice? You should be thankful that people are taking the time to point out elements that you may have missed that could change your opinion to one that holds more strength.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
The pacific ocean is made of chocolate. But I refuse to debate it.
Later Days
that was a misstep on my part. I don't necessarily think that you are corrupting the ideals of anarchism, you are just holding them up to a standard that human nature will never allow.
Later Days
This made me laugh.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks