The Armed Revolution

132 posts / 0 new
Last post
Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 26 2004 17:34
George'sBush wrote:
Username wrote:
redyred wrote:
Yes, Italy's birthrate is less than 2, so their population is decreasing. There are something like about 10 countries in the world where that's happening. Not that it really matters either way. People starve because of economic relations, not overpopulation. There is crowding in certain areas, but the earth is sparsely populated overall and could support a much lager population than it already has.

You're wrong. Famine is inherent with an unsustainable system like agriculture. Wow, you're crazy. Who the hell thinks the world could hold more people?! Nobody, that's who. Everybody knows there are too many people on earth. Everybody just doesn't know there were too many people in 10,000 BC.

"Yo, kettle!"

"Yeah pot?"

"You're black, man"

roll eyes

I totally wasn't calling the kettle black. roll eyes

gav's picture
gav
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Sep 26 2004 18:35

this is all a wind up, right?

if not, i don't know if this debate is worth continuing because there is such a massive gulf in opinion (and sanity) between Username and everyone else

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 26 2004 18:42

are there any green anarchists up here? anyone against civilization? doesn't look like any other primmies, so i won't ask.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 26 2004 18:50
Username wrote:
Fascism is total state control.

No. You're thinking of totalitarianism. Fascism is an ideology based on the notion that humanity is naturally flawed.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 26 2004 18:51
Username wrote:
are there any green anarchists up here? anyone against civilization? doesn't look like any other primmies, so i won't ask.

I think there are some in the museum.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 26 2004 19:11
redyred wrote:
Username wrote:
Fascism is total state control.

No. You're thinking of totalitarianism. Fascism is an ideology based on the notion that humanity is naturally flawed.

Again, with your insane information. I've never heard such a definition of fascism. Is anyone else reading this stuff? Does anyone else agree that fascists are characterized by their misanthropic beliefs? How about these definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition

redyred wrote:
Username wrote:
are there any green anarchists up here? anyone against civilization? doesn't look like any other primmies, so i won't ask.

I think there are some in the museum.

hardy har har, yeah, we're looking at your antiquated red asses on display

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Sep 26 2004 21:14

gonna bypass the primmie v anti-primmie and get back to the point of armed defence/uprising.

The motherfuckers in the states in the 1960s are a good example of a movement/group who were both analytically lucid and damm good at defending themselves against the cops. I think they all took martial arts classes and were particularly handy during riots and streetfights.

I think the trouble is that a lot of anarchists would choose a spliff and a night in front of the telly ahead of kung fu lessons. Imagine that, a mob of pissed off, class conscious, anarchist bruce lee's squaring up to police lines! Stuff wet dreams are made of!

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 26 2004 22:48
Username wrote:
redyred wrote:
Fascism is an ideology based on the notion that humanity is naturally flawed.

Again, with your insane information. I've never heard such a definition of fascism. Is anyone else reading this stuff? Does anyone else agree that fascists are characterized by their misanthropic beliefs? How about these definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition

Your not going to get a proper political analysis of fasicsm from dictionary.com. Fascist regimes are inherently totalitarian, but they don't mean the same thing. The root ideology is that humanity is inherently "bad" and needs controlling and supressing, that might is right and only the strong deserve to survive. It is anti-humanism, lowering humans to the status of animals. Anything which contradicts the natural needs of humans to expand and make use of the environment is anti-humanist, and if taken to an extreme becomes fascism.

I wouldn't say you personally are a fascist, Username (unless I was drunk and playing devil's advocate, which happens), but I would describe you as an anti-humanist, and fascism is the extreme form of anti-humanism.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 26 2004 22:59

okay, redyred, i've never heard that before, and I don't agree with you; and i also don't agree that i'm anti-humanist; but whatever.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 26 2004 23:27

You think the main problem we face today is that there are too many humans running around. Sounds pretty anti-humanist to me.

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Sep 27 2004 00:03

Fuck, I quit for a week and there's pricks like that running about!Username, I hope one day we meet and when I kick your fuck in, you better decline modern medicine. Pseudo-fascist, daft fucking tube.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 27 2004 00:14
redyred wrote:
You think the main problem we face today is that there are too many humans running around. Sounds pretty anti-humanist to me.

The planet's too small. I'm not against us, humans, thick-headed motherfucker!

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ee-group/Anarchy_Against_Capitalism_and_Socialism.html

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ee-group/Nihilism_vs__Socialism.html

Wayne wrote:
Fuck, I quit for a week and there's pricks like that running about!Username, I hope one day we meet and when I kick your fuck in, you better decline modern medicine. Pseudo-fascist, daft fucking tube.

You're kidding me. A fucking threat?! Fuck you! I would not hesitate to inform the police of such a threat! That shit's illegal here in the US of A. They'd arrest you, commie, for such macho pissing games!

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Sep 27 2004 00:46

Fuck up prick teeth. I crack the jokes around here.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Sep 27 2004 08:46
Username wrote:
are there any green anarchists up here?

loads

Quote:

anyone against civilization?

1, including you. smile

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Sep 27 2004 09:47
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
The motherfuckers in the states in the 1960s are a good example of a movement/group who were both analytically lucid and damm good at defending themselves against the cops. I think they all took martial arts classes and were particularly handy during riots and streetfights.

I think the trouble is that a lot of anarchists would choose a spliff and a night in front of the telly ahead of kung fu lessons. Imagine that, a mob of pissed off, class conscious, anarchist bruce lee's squaring up to police lines! Stuff wet dreams are made of!

grin

There are groups who put quite a bit of emhasis on preparedness, and i think this is changing from what it used to be and more and more comms are doing stuff to keep themselves at least a bit fitter, stronger and able.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Sep 27 2004 19:43

I'm against civilisation -- but I think the opposite of civilisation is autonomy and harmony within our ecosystem. How do we get autonomy and harmony? By building it in the here and now.

Username, you've still not said how we should go against population in the here and now. Hand out condoms in India? I'd be all for that, but I don't see how it's more important than building strong social movements that can destroy civilisation.

BTW I never called anyone a fascist. I mean that if I don't want the police to EVEN bomb fascists, I certainly don't want them to bomb anarchists I don't agree with.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 27 2004 20:15

Reminds me I have to get back to my Aikido classes...

Here's one. I know an anarchist (well, former anarchist, he got pissed off with people like Username in the mid-'90s and rejected it, and won't let people call him that now), who's been a member of the NRA for a while and is their recruitment officer (fwoabw, afaik) in Vermont. He's just resigned because they've started sending him Vote Bush literature, but anyway, he's very anti gun control because he sees being armed as the only true protection from the State that a citizen has in the US (constitution etc. etc.)

Now, here in the UK, I'm quite happy that we have gun control, because it means we have police officers who most of the time have to make do with big sticks instead of pistols, and they have to run around after people instead of eating doughnuts and wearing XXXL uniforms, much better. If the current anti-terrorist legislation frenzy continues, we'll probably end up with a situation where the police are armed with guns, and British Subjects aren't allowed any kind of gun ownership, registered or unregistered. Meaning a much bigger imbalance between state violence and the violence the general population is capable of. At the moment, there's a few response units etc. etc. but they're for specific situations, not constant resistance by entire communities.

So in the US, if there was ever a revolution, you'd have large numbers of people armed with firearms (although plenty would be counter-revolutionary rednecks), able to form militias and operate effectively against the police, and probably the army (especially if the army was still in Iraq). Here, you'd have almost no people with firearms, a moderately armed police force with assorted anti-terrorist squads, plus the army to deal with. But your average BNP member wouldn't be armed either.

Probably if the UK government started massacreing it's own unarmed population, that'd be seen as worse than firefights with local militias, so a revolution here could potentially gain wider support in other countries. I don't see revolutionary (as opposed to rebellious) violence breaking out unless there was a proper, social/political dual power situation between self-managed communties, and the State/Capital, at which point, those communities might be capable of either appropriating arms or producing them (3rd biggest industry in the UK is defense right?), still, interested to hear people's views.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Sep 27 2004 22:12

i was under the impression that since the ban on handguns, the amount of firearms in the uk has actually increased....

anyway, you don't want to learn kung fu, that was developed by monks, and what do they know? you want to learn karate, cos it was invented by peasants on okinawa where they weren't allowed swords to fight the samurai, i.e. to fight a load of bastard lackeys of the ruling class who were heavily armoured and some of them rode horses... and the cops don't even have swords, so it should be easy. although when you learn to kick people off of horses you have to try harder cos japanese horses are several hands shorter than european ones i think.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 27 2004 22:13
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
I'm against civilisation

finally

Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Username, you've still not said how we should go against population in the here and now. Hand out condoms in India? I'd be all for that, but I don't see how it's more important than building strong social movements that can destroy civilisation.

The only way I believe we can "destroy" civilization is by taking away the need for it. As long as we have six billion people, we will need agriculture. Maybe we can get by without industry, which might be better, but we'll still have civilization. I only believe we need to spread the word and get people committed to living without capitalism and socialism (industry) and perhaps even having one less kid, so we'd be that much closer to a world who's able to forage instead of plant. BTW, grains are bad for us, humans. In the last 12,000 years, our bodies still haven't adapted to the wheat. That's why some of us need glasses and I have allergies. That's why there's obesity and cavities.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 27 2004 23:24
revol68 wrote:
what the fuck does civilisation even mean?

Why we need to get rid of agriculture/civilization: specialization / division of labor. Marx may have been the first to say these things are alienating. These two things are why we all feel atomized amongst a sea of other humans!

revol68 wrote:
username what fucking age are u?

twenty-six, and you?

revol68 wrote:
ur arguments are mad, on one hand u want a smaller population which would to my mind require alot of contraception yet on the other hand u want a smaller population in order to remove the need for civilisation and return ourselves to a more natural existance?

Those aren't contradictions, my friend. You have to be careful with that word, "nature". It can mean anything. What do I want? I want what the aborigines have and what the native Americans and cavemen had. When Columbus found America, a long time after Africans had already been here (They Came Before Columbus, a book that made me exempt from an exam), he saw naked savages who were bursting with happiness. They were giving, loving people who's work was indistinguishable from their play. That's all I want. I don't want computers and lamborghinis. I don't need hospitals because honestly, they're a part of the problem. I just want anarchy.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 28 2004 12:11

Oooh Revol your birthday is one day before Woody Guthrie's deathday. I just watched Bound for Glory, the Guthrie biopic with David Carradine. Woody Guthrie was so awesome, and the younger David Carradine was so hot.

Anyway, Username, are you going to literally dismantle and undo civilization and technology to get to a primitive society, which would be a contradictory task in itself because it would take consensus, planning and - heaven forbid - technology itself (you can't, say, rip up a motorway with wooden tools). Or do you see these future hunter-gatherers living alongside the ruins of abandoned cities, Mad Max style? I can't really see that working out either, any more than socialism in one country could.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 28 2004 12:20

Username, how will you deal with Nuclear waste for the next five hundred years?

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Sep 28 2004 14:38

Username, how will the reduction of population come about? I don't see anything worthwhile happening until we find a way to organise - unlikely to happen when everyone we disagree with is treated as a hated enemy.

Quote:
fuck me ur a deluded idiot,

And you're an annoying, hostile twat.

Why is there a "Mr T" emoticon? Mr. T

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Sep 28 2004 17:03
Quote:
fuck me ur a deluded idiot, ur idea of native american cultures is so patronising, they had wars and class systems, they had a very elaborate civilisation.

Not neccesarily, they did have wars but it was mainly ritualised warfare and rarely was anybody killed. They did have a class system but that system was based on merit of that individual not like the closed societies in the west at the time. There civilisation was elaborate but it was simple and an ecologists dream.

Still that is not a perfect society or even a good society in my opinion.

Quote:
any more than socialism in one country could.

Depends how big that country is. twisted

If it was massive like china, im sure socialism could survive there.

Quote:
I don't need hospitals because honestly, they're a part of the problem. I just want anarchy.

Not a very good version of anarchy if you cant give the post revolutionary people health care, easier living, less work and longer happier lives, there you might aswell stick with capitalism. Primitivism and the destruction of civilisation will only create more toil and hardships, technology will free humanity from the toil of hard work, and give us more time to live fulfilled lives.

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Sep 28 2004 17:20

Fucking hell, there is something to be said for primitivism! If we lived in a primitivist (non)society then the life expectancy would be about forty at the most. Which means username would hopefully be dead in just fourteen years smile

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 28 2004 18:11

Or, hopefully, mauled by wild animals much sooner.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Sep 28 2004 18:48
redyred wrote:
Or, hopefully, mauled by wild animals much sooner.

Lol. Maybe by an Ulcer which couldnt be treated as there will be no hospitals.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Sep 28 2004 22:00
redyred wrote:
Username, are you going to literally dismantle and undo civilization and technology to get to a primitive society, which would. . . take consensus, planning. . . .

I would say, "Yes, I was thinking everyone should stop industrialism, dismantle their industries, put everything into organic compost," et cetera, but a lot of people are dependent on a lot of industries; and I just don't know how much we can do away with at this moment. Yeah, it would take consensus. I wouldn't be happy with making people unhappy. I don't know if it's better to let stuff decay Mad Max style or to break it down and return it to its natural ecology. I would think the latter would be better and is basically permaculture.

Catch wrote:
Username, how will you deal with Nuclear waste for the next five hundred years?

I have been wondering the answer to that, myself. Maybe we should launch them into the sun, or would that mess up our solar system?

bigdave wrote:
Username, how will the reduction of population come about? I don't see anything worthwhile happening until we find a way to organise - unlikely to happen when everyone we disagree with is treated as a hated enemy.

The population reduction is really an indirect thing. We wouldn't be reducing the population. We'd convince people to reduce the birth rate. I don't really treat people as enemies just because they disagree with me.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Sep 28 2004 22:12
Username wrote:
Catch wrote:
Username, how will you deal with Nuclear waste for the next five hundred years?

I have been wondering the answer to that, myself. Maybe we should launch them into the sun, or would that mess up our solar system?

If the solar system was destroyed by nuclear waste being fired into space, and the people responsible were primitivists, you'd have to laugh at the irony.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Sep 29 2004 08:57
Quote:
The population reduction is really an indirect thing. We wouldn't be reducing the population. We'd convince people to reduce the birth rate. I don't really treat people as enemies just because they disagree with me.

What like china?