I wish them the best but they are spitting into a hurricane. The corporate monsters control everything. There are no countries anymore, only companies.
wow, who would have thought that dressing in deliberately scary clothing and violently protesting would lead to government overreaction and an increased authoritarian state?
oh, wait, its supposed to be the anarchists who thought that...
well, at least such protest movements aren't helping the media marginalize such political dissent... oh wait...
good old protest movement. Marginalizing itself while crippling its ability to enact change, all for the predictable consequence of less freedom. God bless those patriots
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
anarchists generally oppose the state. I think all forms of anarchy depend largely on social co-operation and organization.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
Do these groups form spontaneously and act as a Borg-like hive? If they don't then someone is in charge, an idea that fits perfectly with the colloquial meaning of ironic.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Only if you have a very weird, almost idiotic, understanding of anarchy.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
So if two guys come together and decide to say, meet in a week, that already broke anarchy, they life in a government society now?
So, yeah, that definition is dumb, perhaps it fits what anarchy means in some contexts but it does not encompass the concept of anarchy.
Sorry, but, people getting together and freely and voluntarily deciding on a plan does not make it non-anarchist.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
But the moment they put someone in charge that person is governing them. They are no longer in a state of anarchy. An organization is not anarchic, they're just an anti-state group at that point.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
In a very specific definition of anarchy and government, yes. Not in all. Definitely not in common ones used by anarchists.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
I don't know, I think there are way bigger and more fundamental issues than some vague definitions. Most causes do have that.
Of course I realize you just wanted to rile me up a little.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
Sorry to say that your disagreement of the definition doesn't make it idiotic. It does make you wrong though.
Then they shouldn't be defining themselves as anarchist groups. They're no different from any other protest group. They just use the "anarchy" tag as an excuse for promoting smashing up people's businesses and property. Meaning that they don't really have bigger and more fundamental issues. They just like people to believe they have an agenda that goes beyond smashing stuff up. They don't. Which makes them no different from petty criminals and vandals.
so, not to argue with the oh-so-authoritative dictionary, but that is not in congruence with any of the philosophical ideas of anarchy, which can be traced back over 2000 years.
It is, however, largely congruent with the propaganda that informed the public about anarchy in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
I don't mean to insinuate that you should read about something before casting such sweeping generalizations, but...
I largely agree. At the very least, they don't understand their own ideology. If the state is violent and oppressive by nature, and uses opposition to oppress freedom, violent protest is probably the last thing you would want to do.
indeed. However, that anarchy concerns itself primarily with formal institutions of governance, and not the issue of authority in general, especially if we look at anarchist thought originating after the 1800s, would seem to render this moot.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Not to make sweeping generalisations but i'm guessing that the overwhelming majority of modern "anarchists" aren't historians or philosophers of the subject and really are just in it for the excuse to smash things up.
there are very good reasons why I don't wear black ski masks and sling petrol bombs
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
Nah, the majority of people who would identify as anarchists today are whiny man-children who need to get over their own egos. The rest are philosophical like Bardock and inimalist. Then a very few just want to be violent.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Or students with extremely rich (through the marvels of capitalism) parents who can hire lawyers to get them off after they've burned down an independant shop owners family business and only means of income as a sign of protest against capitalism.
Even the dictionary you cited (American Heritage, right?) has further definitions of the term. So, really, it doesn't make me wrong at all, it supports my point that the definition is only applicable in certain cases.
I have not met anyone like that, though I am sure there are many. But that seems to be more of a communist/socialist inspired view of anarchy. Which those "punk" kids you see in the streets at times are, apparently.
__________________
Bardock42 is a whimpering pussy now who lost his flare to debate vigorously and just spouts senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there. You nazi pr*ck. Get your balls back from whoever you sold them to, you fat f*ck. What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who'd flatten ignorance with a solid argument? Now it's like Andy Dick meets John Candy. You hybrid beefcake. Suck my c*ck
- valid criticism by "Mammon"
Last edited by Bardock42 on Sep 24th, 2009 at 10:06 PM
KMC Community Forums
Sep 24th, 2009 03:52 PM
