Liberal hypocrites

I've noticed quite a few people here support anarchism and Che Guevara.

The fact is that Guevara was one of the most hardline communists the world has ever seen. Although he had his own thoughts and world-outlook, his policies and ideas were much like Mao's.

Che Guevara hated the US government. He despised social democracy, liberalism, conservativism. His ideas are not related to liberals in any way!



The fact is that anarchism does not mean "do whatever you want & fuck the government". That's a common mistake. Anarchism is the same as communism. Anarchists are revolutionary leftists.

The only difference between communsists and anarchists, is that communists believe in a transitional stage, namely socialism.

 

Well said... guevera was much like mao, tru... and maos beliefs arent necessarily false, they are just morally wrong... "revolution can only be achieved through the barrel of a shotgun"

 

I think if you support anarchism and don't lead a mob you're a freaking idiot.

But a gang is a system of control too, I own lots of guns, but I'm not pretending I could get along fine in anarchism...

Most people who support anarchism are kids who don't what danger is.

 

Actually, I think it is "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", but yeah, I get your point. Nice pick of quote, btw

It wasn't like as Mao loved war or revolution. It's basic marxism. The ruling class will never give their power away, and so the supressed classes will have to fight in order to get the upper hand.

Although Mao had his mistakes, like all human beings, I do not think he was morally wrong.




Lodui, why do you compare anarchism to mob rule?

 

Gangs are a reflection of revolutionary culture -- huey p newton, black panther party

Before 1776 America was a British colony. The British Government had certain laws and rules that the colonized Americans rejected as not being in their best interests. In spite of the British conviction that Americans had no right to establish their own laws to promote the general welfare of the people living here in America, the colonized immigrant felt he had no choice but to raise the gun to defend his welfare. Simultaneously he made certain laws to ensure his protection from external and internal aggressions, from other governments, and his own agencies. One such form of protection was the Declaration of Independence, which states: '... whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.' Now these same colonized White people, these bondsmen, paupers, and thieves deny the colonized Black man not only the right to abolish this oppressive system, but to even speak of abolishing it.

 

gangs are a reflection of insecurity. How does a society without order work? Say i dont want t play the game and i decide to have some fun with a big gun and everyone else, who stops me? When my house catches fire who do I call? Ghostbusters? When another country decides are little eutopia looks like a nice piece of real estate who defends it, or even co-ordinates the defense? What happens if everyone decides that they'd rather get stoned than word in retail cos its boring do I starve? Most importantly to me, I like my science, which relies on large networks of people how does that continue?

 

This is a perfect example of peoples misconception about anarchism. it isn't a complete lack of order...

A group similar to a neighborhood watch

Firefighters

Everyone defends it, whoever steps up to lead will lead it.

First of all, What retail? Arent people already doing that? Production would be made for people, not for profit.
And I find that offensive because i am getting stoned right now and I also work in retail at the same time, imagine that.

How doesnt it? Just because there is no government does not mean people cannot function as a normal society...

 

What about sanitation?

Even if you could find some company to fill those jobs, what if there was a labor dispute? Would they just not work and we'd all wallow around in crap?

Anarchists don't think things through... and like I said, most are children who can't defend themselves anyway.

 

How would you define "order"?

Why do you believe anarchism means "no order"?

The community, or the police? Perhaps both?

There is no problem having a police, even if the state does not exist. The police will be administrated by the community.

Actually, in an anarchist society, telephones won't exist!


Just kidding

The firefighters, of course.

There's no textbook answer. I believe it depends on the conditions (foreign and domestic). I could give you several answers, but it would only be speculation.

Pay offices etc. won't exist because money will have no value. Society work "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That means everyone can take what they want, provided that everyone has to do a minimum of neccesary work in a period of time.

If people in the community want to get high, that's their business. If you do not work, then you should not expect societies support, either.

As Mui said earlier:
"Just because there is no government does not mean people cannot function as a normal society..."

 

What about it?

No company. An anarchist society is not capitalist.

An example, please?

How would you know?

How would you know?

 

Humans functioned without government for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Far more than the amount of years we have been functioning with government. No gov't is the norm, what we are doing now is abnormal.

The question is, now that we are at this point, can we go back? I don't think we can. I think we need something new.

 

An Anarchy isn't a system of government, its a lack there of.

People will exist to fulfill the needs of santation for example.

Goods and survices will continue to be traded. Sanatation would then by handled by a group of people working for monetary benifit... its not like anyone grows up and wants to be a sanitation worker.

The saitation people are living below there means while they are doing a job that sucks, so they quit working...

Without government protections in place, the town would be covered in crap.

Think the problem I posted just now through then.

Cause I've meet lots of anarchists... I wasn't even implying you...

But how old are you? Are you male or female? How tall are you? How much do you weigh? Do you know any self defense? Do you own any guns? Have you ever had to shoot anyone?

Anarchy is dangerous. Anyone who says differently is a foolish child. You are being protected by the invisible hand of the government, and if you want to wish it away, you better be able to handle your shit.

 

The only societys were anarchy ever existed, we're nomadic tribes.

Once agriculture developed, there was a need for law.

There was law in naomadic societies too, it was the law of strongest rule.

 

if sanitation was a real problem, you can bet without a doubt there will be someone out there who wants to clean their society up... Lodui I think you need to think things through.

You are talking about something that is far off from anarchy... we are talking about a system without capitalism, you are talking about Capitalistic Chaos with no order.

If a society is having problems with sanitation... children are dying, parasites everywhere... people WILL step up and take care of the problem so their friends and family can be healthy... i assure you that... no ones going to go "ew, poo poo" and let their society fill the streets with shit.

anarchy existed so long ago that you cannot say when it "ever existed"... when it existed isnt even relevant to what we are talking about here...

You are arguing against the media-influenced version of Anarchy when we are talking about Real anarchy.


But dont worry, you dont have to debate us with any sort of factual information, you can just make broad generalizations about what you think anarchists are and that'll be good nuff.

this quote perfectly shows that you have no idea what me and Communism are talking about.

 

Would you voulenteer to be a sanitation worker for crappy pay for your stupid town, or would you move somewhere else that already had it.

Fuck my town, let them drown in crap, I don't wanna be a sanitation worker,.

A system without capitalism is socialism... and even then goods and services are traded.

Perhaps you're talking about Libertarian socialisism, or Anarcho-syndicalism or whatever But those aren't anarchy either.

In an anarchy, even good and services are traded/

But modern sanitation equipment is required and costs lots of money. You need an industry of some sort to fund the capital or the government to finance the equipment. Neither of those are anarchy.

anarchy existed so long ago that you cannot say when it "ever existed"... when it existed isnt even relevant to what we are talking about here...

Media influenced version of anarchy? What the hell are you talking about?


Show me some young budding anarchic paradises.

There aren't any. The closest thing we've seen to anarchy in the past 500 years was the wild west... not exactly a nice place for children and kittens.

You haven't posted facts either, as facts aren't very effective when discussing something so abstract.

I'll agree with that one... what the hell are you and communism talking about?

 

We are talking about Anarcho-Communism... which we think, essentially, is what anarchy is about... a system without capitalism isnt Socialism, it's communism... (socialism is the stage inbetween anarchy and the existing government) and communism (the philosophy) was originally stateless... read the communist manifesto if you don't believe me... no where in it does it say there is supposed to be a Government or State... lenin worked towards bringing the state down, like a true marxist philosopher, but he never was in power.
So when we talk about anarchy we are talking about communism... its all the same thing... and there are people out there in the sanitation department who love their jobs... i know school janitors who really loved their jobs, and I know garbagemen who love their jobs... they know its a tough job but they know someones gotta do it... society isnt going to turn from clean to completely shit because there is no more government. and the sanitation equipment argument doesnt work, we already possess the knowledge of creating it... nothing will stop us from further producing these things in a governmentless society. maybe you'd hate working in sanitation too, I wouldnt like it either... but if my kids were becoming ill and dying because of poor sanitation, i would definitely step up to take care of the problem.
Come on, we all know a LOT of obessive compulsive people who just HATE things dirty or unorganized... if they had to walk thru shit in the streets, theyd freak out and start cleaning things like mad crazy.

 

Well good for you, but I'd just take my kids and move to a less crappy town.


Didn't Stalin have Trotsky killed with ice pick to the brain?

 

actually anarchism is super far right, it's what liberatarians become when they get balls, think about, communism is super big government, anarchy is super small (nonexistant) government, don't preach ignorance

The gardener ramone killed trotsky with either an icepick or a mountain climbing axe I can't quite remember, it was commishioned by stalin, it is ironic, and their is a play about it (variations on the death of trotsky)

Maybe ramon was a literalist, He asked "What should I do with these petunias?" "I don't know, Why don't you axe mr. trotsky?"

 

I want to ask why ‘liberal hypocrites’ what has liberalism or liberal thinking got to do with anarchism (with a small a) and communism or even for that matter socialism.

Here is are two definitions of ‘liberal’ from a couple of dictionaries.

liberal

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
e. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
f. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
1. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
2. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
a. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved


liberal
adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

**

OK so let us look at liberalism

liberalism

3. The state or quality of being liberal.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
4. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
5. Liberalism
a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

**


This seems to be a problem with American politics at the moment, there are many on the right that seem to think that any type of thinking that is any way left of their own is one step away from some extreme form of Stalinist communism.

PS: Also what is this fucking obsession with Che Guevara I mean has someone sent around a crib sheet of thread suggestions or something?

 

Oh yeah, the "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat that was supposed to just wither away. Instead, after ~70 years of iron-fisted rule and an unprecedented death toll, it collapsed under its own weight.

Morally wrong? Perish the thought! He was only perhaps the greatest mass murderer of all time . . .