untethered
For industry & decency
Irenick said:
Oh do grow up, you sad sack.
Boris Bashed - what a Belter
- Thread starter The Black Hand
- Start date
Oh do grow up, you sad sack.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
untethered said:Oh do grow up, you sad sack.
have a nice cup of tea untethered, and let the internets people have their fun. the tories are going to win the next election and then boris will get his own back, don't you worry.
London Boy
New Member
A political clown (Boris) gets assaulted by a bunch of non-entities and pathetic bigots (the AF).
Is this even worthy of news or a post.
Is this even worthy of news or a post.
The Black Hand
Unclean
Having a go at the class enemy is always worthwhile pal.
London Boy
New Member
Well I don't suffer from paranoid delusions of a 'class enemy' and I don't subscribe to totalitarian ideologies such as Marxism or collectivist/socialist 'anarchism' (which is not anarchism at all).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Is it not?
That's as maybe, but as much as I'd like to string the pathetic old twat from a lamppost with a Liverpool scarf, there's not really a whole lot of point. Seriously hurting him would have only resulted in the folks involved getting nicked and would have achieved fuck all. What'd be the point?Irenick said:
At least this was funny.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
London Boy said:
in what way?
this should be interesting.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Landan kiddywinkle obviously hasn't read much Marx.
London Boy
New Member
You claim to stand for a stateless society of free beings who have complete sovereignty over their own thoughts, speech and actions.
Okay, thats a noble ideal any person with an ounce of common sense would want, myself included.
But the collectivist element of what is called 'class struggle anarchism'/'anarchist communism' is where things start to fall apart.
If you claim to oppose the right of one person to impose their own will, political dogma or outlook on another, then how can you justify the abolition of private property, profits and the right of people to partake in commerce, trade, buiness and work of their choice?
If an anarchist communist revolution were to happen tomorrow, I would not even think of handing over a penny of my wealth or any part of my own property to anyone under duress (which is what socialist/anarchist-communist revolutions usually entail, people having their belongings taken from them by the state or a body of 'revolutionaries').
What would happen to me? Would I get the pleasure of having to face 'revolutionary justice' by firing squad like those of 'anarchist Spain, maybe work on some slave camp like so many people did in Cambodia?
At the end of the day, a real free society without a state would allow each person his/her right to decide what system to live under. If the British state collapsed tomorrow (sadly it won't) I would be more than happy to have a system whereby those collectivist anarchists who oppose capitalism can live in communes or cities of their choosing and those, like me, who favour a anarchist capitalist system can live in our own cities of our own choice and both sides would show respect for the other to live in their own way of being.
Just that the anti-capitalist anarchists, like the communists, talk of 'world revolution' which means having one system for the entire planet and humanity, which means that a system of totalitarianism and bloodletting will follow as not every person would want that system.
Like I said, if you wish for a non-capitalist society, then I would support your right to have one provided you in return would support the right of anarchist capitalists to have their own system of freedom as well.
Okay, thats a noble ideal any person with an ounce of common sense would want, myself included.
But the collectivist element of what is called 'class struggle anarchism'/'anarchist communism' is where things start to fall apart.
If you claim to oppose the right of one person to impose their own will, political dogma or outlook on another, then how can you justify the abolition of private property, profits and the right of people to partake in commerce, trade, buiness and work of their choice?
If an anarchist communist revolution were to happen tomorrow, I would not even think of handing over a penny of my wealth or any part of my own property to anyone under duress (which is what socialist/anarchist-communist revolutions usually entail, people having their belongings taken from them by the state or a body of 'revolutionaries').
What would happen to me? Would I get the pleasure of having to face 'revolutionary justice' by firing squad like those of 'anarchist Spain, maybe work on some slave camp like so many people did in Cambodia?
At the end of the day, a real free society without a state would allow each person his/her right to decide what system to live under. If the British state collapsed tomorrow (sadly it won't) I would be more than happy to have a system whereby those collectivist anarchists who oppose capitalism can live in communes or cities of their choosing and those, like me, who favour a anarchist capitalist system can live in our own cities of our own choice and both sides would show respect for the other to live in their own way of being.
Just that the anti-capitalist anarchists, like the communists, talk of 'world revolution' which means having one system for the entire planet and humanity, which means that a system of totalitarianism and bloodletting will follow as not every person would want that system.
Like I said, if you wish for a non-capitalist society, then I would support your right to have one provided you in return would support the right of anarchist capitalists to have their own system of freedom as well.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Try reading some literature before you make you educated analysis.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have a go at his ideas hooverbag. He's a sittng duck. I'm sure you can put enough together for that.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
London Boy said:
but they don't support the right of non-capitalists to have their system do they?
hence the revolutionary bit of things.
London Boy
New Member
Was that in response to me?
Well first off, which anarchist-communist writer has written about the problem I highlighted? Kropotkin? Bakunin? Malatesta? Goldman? Berkmann?
Also, one trouble with the writings of political ideologues is that they often paint a very different picture to the reality of their politics. It was said that the 1936 Constitution of the USSR (the Stalin Constitution) was the most democratic and fair one in writing, better than the US or French one. Only trouble was that it was just a piece of paper and meant fuck all in the reality of things in Stalin's Russia.
My point was valid, so either answer it or don't but don't make assumptions of my level of intellect just becuase I differ in my views than yours. You may think that only your collectivist vision is the right one and that everyone else is either wrong or too stupid to understand your views, but there are many people who do differ in your views.
I have my own ideals, but I respect other people's ideals too.
If you want an anarchist-communist society, then good for those who want it. In a stateless society I would be more than happy for people who want that system to have it, all I want to know is why does the anarchist communist movement seem not to favour such a plural and democratic system in return, as they seem to want to impose their system on others, regardless if they want it or not.
London Boy
New Member
If by "they" you mean the state, then yes you are right and the state does not support my right to live in an anarchist capitalist society either, so we are both fucked over by them.
However, if you version of anarchism were to win, would you then support the right of others to their own society, or would you impose your society on others in the same manner that the state you just got rid of did?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
London Boy said:
it would depend. maybe is the only answer i can give. but probably not. the best i can hope for is that my ideal society would prove to be popular enough to be self-preserving.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Blagsta said:
ain't it just. but at the same time it does desribe fairly well what it wants - a society unfettered by governments, where free-market capitalism is the ONLY rule.
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
bluestreak said:
We're against pushing Boris off his bike - isn't that obvious?
We'd have invited him for a cup of tea and a hobnob and talked with him about how anarchism can transform community, relationships, social structures, democracy (and other things) in a positive way.
All "Bash the Rich Toff Boris" used to it's achieve it's aims was violence and the threat of violence. A mob forced themselves on Boris en masse, based on their perceived class/caste/wealth/status difference - this was not a meeting based on anti-discrimination/equality/freedom from oppression.
Not surprisingly, Boris found it intimidating.
No, those involved cannot be excused by claiming 'victimisation'. They used oppressive means to get absolutely no-point-that-anyone-can-see-other-than-give-the-media-another-chance-to-label-self-proclaimed-anarchists-as-mobbish-twats.
Since there's no room for a dialogue in this type of covert violent action, other than verbal threats of violence and the perceived threat of violence, this classes as mob-rule (ochlarchism), and yes, this is a type of systemic violence - mafia violence is systemic violence, mob-violence is systemic violence, 'threat of violence' is systemic violence, etc.
IMHO "Bash the Rich" may well be acceptable in some circumstances, e.g. a single oppressed person striking out against a single oppressor, but not as a policy of a group attacking an individual.
It most certainly was not an act of contemporary anarchism - unless of course you believe that the covert violence that 'Fucks off a toff' was somehow a communion of equals :rollseyes:
Nil point
London Boy
New Member
A good point.
Lets use an example of how I would like things to be in a stateless, post autocratic Britain.
Say London opts of an anarchist capitalist system and say Manchester opted for a anarchist communitst system.
Those people in Manchester who wish to live under a anarchist capitalist system would be free to leave and head for London, in return those Londoners who wish to live under an anarchist communist system would be free to move to Manchester.
And at any point in time, those who are convinced of the benefits of one system or another can freely leave and go to live under the system of their choosing.
A plurality of anarchisms is what I think is best and one that would not involve one side having to crush the other, thus causing human right violations, death and suffering as well as oppression.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
London Boy said:
How would this anarchist capitalist London reproduce itself without seeking to extend the operation of its markets into other areas (including ultimately anarchist communist Manchester)?
Louis MacNeice
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
I totally agree.
They had a fine opportunity to eradicate a class enemy, a man who has shown his contempt for the working classes time and again, and all they did was push him off his bike. Baaad AF members. Go to your rooms without dinner!
There are so many dead anarchists spinning in their graves, you could harness enough "green" energy off 'em to power half of London.
The Black Hand
Unclean
Luther Blissett said:
It was an act of liberation as they identified one of the causes of the capitalist system, and did a limited action. Boris represents systemic violence of the oppressors, and the class warriors represented the oppressed, their violence - not that there was any - you need to get out more
and look historically at the development of what is violence and the martial art tradition (some of which such as Aikido do not use strikes). Before and after 'it' has been codified.Bashing the rich is a tactic to try and spread awareness and encourage mimicking, it is an exemplary deed, and common historically within oppressed groups (ie. the working class in Britain, and anarchists more generally for the past couple of hundred years e.g. Lucy Parsons, Ravochol etc.).
You are trying to impose a pacified and codified social life upon people, and are calling that alone anarchism. That is actually utopian thought, a fine thing to believe in - but we do not live in that society, it sounds like a rather nice one to live in and is one we can aim for. However, in this society there are tremendous problems with your idealistic position, which smacks of elitism amongst other things (one of the milder problems).
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
bluestreak said:
All the power would be in the hands of those with property, hence it not being anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists seem to miss this obvious point. They seem to want to do away with all power except economic power...missing the point of anarchism entirely.
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
*Applauds* - Attica's allegorical play (lifts back of hand to brow in mock thespian pose)Attica said:It was an act of liberation as they identified one of the causes of the capitalist system, and did a limited action. Boris represents systemic violence of the oppressors, and the class warriors represented the oppressed, their violence - not that there was any - you need to get out more
Who are you trying to kid - only kids that I can see. Maybe Al Muhajaroun could use that line of reasoning as an 'excuse' in their 'Kill the kaffir rants', and where would it get them? Discredited and gaoled for inciting violence - which is exactly what you are doing - want to be free of the system? then don't feed it what it wants - be more inventive than that, unless it's your aim to discredit anarchism by encouraging angry oppressed young'uns to act as little mobs in 'Attica-and-Bone's Vanguard'
Therefore vanguardist, of the marxist-leninist school, not anarchistic in any way. And this mimicking - that would filter down so that 'anarchists-of-the-Attica-and-Bone-school' would bash anyone in passing who might look a bit 'toff' or a bit richer? And what if that beggar is a toff, or that well dressed toff a pauper?
Actually, it's entopian, not utopian - and alternatives to governance, civil rights, liberties, and disobediance in the 21st Century are high on the list of main focal points: http://contemporary-anarchist.blogspot.com/2007/06/civil-rights-liberties.html
There's no imposition of a 'pacified/codified social life' in this criticism - they mauled a passing Tory, and that's somehow supposed to constitute what? Civil disobedience to achieve a political aim? No. Because no political aim or point has been made - only the risk of receiving bad publicity in the process that could create a knock on effect to other future processes/protests. Momentary smugness at having bashed someone your peers can go 'coo' at? Yes! This type of action is more likely to work against, not for the causes which anarchist activists involve themselves in. As for being elitistist, that's hilarious - Brigadier Attica inspires his young anarchist vanguard to bash the rich - itself an elitist position!
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
That's just bullying.In Bloom said:
I don't think they're anarchists. I think they're geeky bullies. Their anarchism is almost certainly nothing more than a manifestation of an unresolved dispute with their parents, over pocket money or something. I bet they were wearing all black.
And what's this "professional adulterer"? I thought anarchists approved of "free love" and eschewed the bonds of matrimony. I doubt if they know any girls.
Similar threads
- Poll
