A good but hopeless cause

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090924/us_time/08599192561100

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

I've always thought the fact that there are organised anarchy groups hilariously ironic.

anarchists generally oppose the state. I think all forms of anarchy depend largely on social co-operation and organization.

Originally posted by jaden101
I've always thought the fact that there are organised anarchy groups hilariously ironic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Odd. That's not ironic at all.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

Only if you have a very weird, almost idiotic, understanding of anarchy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Only if you have a very weird, almost idiotic, understanding of anarchy.

Weird and idiotic like say for example the dictionary definition of it?

"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Thus the entire concept of "organised anarchy" is oxymoronic to say the least.

Originally posted by jaden101
Weird and idiotic like say for example the dictionary definition of it?

"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Thus the entire concept of "organised anarchy" is oxymoronic to say the least.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sorry, but, people getting together and freely and voluntarily deciding on a plan is does not make it non-anarchist.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In a very specific definition of anarchy and government, yes. Not in all. Definitely not in common ones used by anarchists.

Which really just explains a lot about why anarchists have tended to be such utter failures when it comes to creating anarchy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which really just explains a lot about why anarchists have tended to be such utter failures when it comes to creating anarchy.

Of course I realize you just wanted to rile me up a little.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. That is an idiotic definition.

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.

Sorry to say that your disagreement of the definition doesn't make it idiotic. It does make you wrong though.

I don't know, I think there are way bigger and more fundamental issues than some vague definitions. Most causes do have that.

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.

Originally posted by jaden101
"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

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...

Originally posted by jaden101
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.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

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.

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...

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.

Originally posted by jaden101
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.

no, and I agreed with that point

there are very good reasons why I don't wear black ski masks and sling petrol bombs

Originally posted by jaden101
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.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

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.

Swell bunch.

Originally posted by jaden101
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.

Originally posted by jaden101
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.

Swell bunch.

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.