DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

March for the Alternative - question

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 26 2011 15:46
March for the Alternative - question

OK, I am not in any way suggesting this is something the "Anarchist groups" are doing and I am merely asking a question but...

I see that there are people throwing paint at police, smashing up banks, letting off stink bombs, throwing paint at hotels... and from what I've seen the people inside these buildings (not talking about the police but other shop workers etc) have not been violent first.

Surely whoever is responsible for this cannot believe that this attitude will work on persuading the government or anyone else to listen to them? I understand that some people are not agreeing with McDonalds or Top Shop or the large banks but as someone with extreme left-wing views I cannot see how this behaviour is tolerable and it brings into question my own opinion as to whether I am being a bit blind to the fact that people can co-operate together in society. I am thinking this is just anti-social behaviour to bully people into listening to them??? I understand the point of occupying government buildings and Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square - excellent - but just not sure why other businesses and people have to be attacked in this way? Does this not counteract the argument as to why we should not have people to "govern" the world???? Hmmm... I am sure I will get a response to say that it's the only way that people will listen - to cause a disturbance - but I think that also completely rules out(!) the ideology of not having a government because surely we would just have a world of organised chaos... I am not menaing to sound rude but I suppose I am questioning the motifs of this as this just seems highly illogical and hopefully someone can explain whether you agree with this type of behaviour and if so, why is it reasonable to think that people are actually morally good people and are perfectly capable of running things on their own?

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 26 2011 16:35

Before you start condemning anarchists for their violence why don't you think about the violence done to people daily by capitalism? A system that will let both you and I starve or live on the poverty line if we refused to do alienated labour. And even beyond that stark point, how about all the daily doses of alienation, of belittlement and dehumanisation that bourgeois society inflicts on everyone? "A thousand pin pricks kill as surely as a shot to the head" (Vaneigem). You could make the legitimate argument that the form of direct action they have chosen will not realise their aims but to claim that they are some how immoral and bullying is to ignore the violence, big and small, done to people like them everyday under capitalist society. The government is not there to act as a fair handed judge of people's rights. It is there and always has been there to forward class interests. Also, they are doing violence to the police, not the general populace, and damaging property is not 'violence' it is damaging property.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Mar 26 2011 16:41
Malva wrote:
to claim that they are some how immoral and bullying is to ignore the violence, big and small, done to people like them everyday under capitalist society.

no, it isn't.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 26 2011 16:45
petey wrote:
Malva wrote:
to claim that they are some how immoral and bullying is to ignore the violence, big and small, done to people like them everyday under capitalist society.

no, it isn't.

Yes it is, because its basic premise is wrong. He is making a moral case. I am saying that if a person punches back and you call him a bully, but ignore the fact the people he is punching beat him down on a regular basis, then you are making a false moral judgement.

Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 26 2011 16:56

Thanks, but I was not condemning anarchists for violence at all as I stated at the beginning. I am not in any way ignoring the violence of capitalist society but it just seems to be one big circle - they hurt me, I'll hurt them back, then they'll hurt me back and then I'll hurt them... and for me that just says that people would NOT be able to co-operate and be civil to each other without someone overseeing everything. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with 99% of anarchist views if everyone were nice like me, but I know they're not and it's not ALL an effect of society.

I was under the impression that before government there were kings in different areas (who were rulers). The Romans invaded countries because they wanted it - the Aborigenes and Red Indians were "kicked" out of their communities. Christians were killed because of their religion, Jews were killed because of their religion etc all because some one or some group thought they were right. Am I not correct in thinking this?

My point then is there will always be people who think they are "right" but disagree with one another so by acting out in this way it COULD come across as anti-social and I'm not sure will create a fairer society!

Another question is why wouldn't anarchists support the Socialist Party, or do they? The only difference I can see is that there would be a leadership with the SP but it would be democratic and voluntary... or am I misunderstanding something? I truly am just looking for answers to clear up any misunderstandings I have!

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 26 2011 17:06

I didn't mean to be harsh but it seemed that you were condemning anarchist violence generally. My bad.

Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 26 2011 17:21

No that's fine Malva I was just asking (as I am a bit confused) whether anarchists would see throwing things at shops as reasonable behaviour. I didn't mean to imply that it was the anarchists necessarily doing it but is this the sort of thing they would do or be encouraged to do? I don't know about anarchism totally (hence my writing here) but do have left wing views and I suppose the thing that stops me thinking that anarchism is the way forward is that it seems anarchists (or some) think this behaviour would be acceptable if necessry but that might be me misunderstanding so I apologise for that if that's the case. My question would be that if anarchists do think it's ok, how do they justify it? Hope that makes sense.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Mar 26 2011 17:24

anarchist don't suggest no organization and everyone would magically get along, we support non hierarchical organization where local groups federate together and coordinate there activity using mandated recordable delegates.

we don't support the socialist party because they are counterrevolutionary leftists, they seek to seize power and believe they can act on behalf of the working class.

you could try reading this http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Mar 26 2011 17:27
Gemfish wrote:
No that's fine Malva I was just asking (as I am a bit confused) whether anarchists would see throwing things at shops as reasonable behaviour. I didn't mean to imply that it was the anarchists necessarily doing it but is this the sort of thing they would do or be encouraged to do? I don't know about anarchism totally (hence my writing here) but do have left wing views and I suppose the thing that stops me thinking that anarchism is the way forward is that it seems anarchists (or some) think this behaviour would be acceptable if necessry but that might be me misunderstanding so I apologise for that if that's the case. My question would be that if anarchists do think it's ok, how do they justify it? Hope that makes sense.

you think such behave isn't acceptable if necessary, so what you would just give up if property damage turned out to be necessary to win?

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 26 2011 17:44

I personally find it more than reasonable, I can't speak on behalf of anyone else though. Vandalism has always been a common theme of class conflict. It depends on what the action is meant to achieve. Luddites smashed the looms which were increasing their poverty. The communards destroyed the Vendome column and burnt down the Hotel de Ville, some even tried to burn down Notre Dame cathedral. It is a symbolic act of defiance and a desire for radical social transformation.

Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 26 2011 17:35
Quote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:

we don't support the socialist party because they are counterrevolutionary leftists, they seek to seize power and believe they can act on behalf of the working class.

But surely overthrowing the government is seizing power??? I know you're saying there's no hierachy but, honestly, do you think that would be true? I am playing devil's advocate here. What if anarchists threw out government and the Tory voters for example say that you are wrong and we need government and get angry? Are you implying that the "workers" would make sure they didn't get power again? Surely in stopping people NOT get power could be seen as dictating their thoughts and telling them what to do and implies the working class ARE the power and therefore more superior?

I'm just really confused about this part. Apologies. I have looked at the FAQ section but it doesn't really answer my question so somewhere along the line I think I'm misunderstanding something!

I suppose it's an ongoing debate but I feel as if I agree with everything "anarchists" do but then on that one issue the whole argument (in my head) falls apart and I can't seem to find logic in it and that frustrates me because then I feel as if I'm making an argument in support of Tories! Grrrrr

Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 26 2011 17:37

OK, just read your replies before I posted my last one. I do get now what you're saying my concern though is whether people wouldn't still be greedy in an anarchist world and look to reinstate government.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Mar 26 2011 17:54
gemfish wrote:
No that's fine Malva I was just asking (as I am a bit confused) whether anarchists would see throwing things at shops as reasonable behaviour.

I think the problem with this statement (and most times protest violence gets discussed) is that it removes the action from all context. The point isn't 'do you support violence or not', the point is 'what tactics will help us achieve our aims'. Is smashing the window of The Ritz Hotel 'reasonable behaviour' (I'm reading 'reasonable' as 'useful')? Well, I think it depends on the movement around it.. if it's a small bunch of people taking secretive action separated from any wider movement, then no, it's probably not all that 'reasonable'.. if it's done as a militant section of a mass movement then I think it changes the issue entirely..

Secondly, apart from context, another important thing to consider with protests is its effectiveness.. so for instance, a perfectly peaceful blockade of a major transport hub will not be met with police pacifism.. it will be attacked. This is a given. The question then becomes how best to defend the action. Not that violence is 'The Answer' that solves all problems but to impose pacifism onto a movement for the sake of moral high ground is to paralyse it and, essentially, to bring about defeat from the inside. For the sake of an idea (non-violence), people's real lives are made worse..

Finally (sorry to go on), but earlier when I say we need to consider "what tactics will help us achieve our aims", this doesn't mean 'anything goes in the class war' because there are some tactics which are counter to our aims (bombing The Ritz, for instance, or assassinating David Cameron..).. these actions do not create the kind of movement we want as they're based on the whim of self-appointed vanguards acting for the working class. It's not based on the working class taking mass action at the point where we are strongest (i.e. strikes, occupations etc as a way to disrupt business as usual)..

Just some thoughts like.. smile

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 26 2011 18:06

Totally agree with Ed

Jenre
Offline
Joined: 16-05-07
Mar 26 2011 18:35
Ed wrote:
gemfish wrote:
No that's fine Malva I was just asking (as I am a bit confused) whether anarchists would see throwing things at shops as reasonable behaviour.

I think the problem with this statement (and most times protest violence gets discussed) is that it removes the action from all context. The point isn't 'do you support violence or not', the point is 'what tactics will help us achieve our aims'. Is smashing the window of The Ritz Hotel 'reasonable behaviour' (I'm reading 'reasonable' as 'useful')? Well, I think it depends on the movement around it.. if it's a small bunch of people taking secretive action separated from any wider movement, then no, it's probably not all that 'reasonable'.. if it's done as a militant section of a mass movement then I think it changes the issue entirely..

Secondly, apart from context, another important thing to consider with protests is its effectiveness.. so for instance, a perfectly peaceful blockade of a major transport hub will not be met with police pacifism.. it will be attacked. This is a given. The question then becomes how best to defend the action. Not that violence is 'The Answer' that solves all problems but to impose pacifism onto a movement for the sake of moral high ground is to paralyse it and, essentially, to bring about defeat from the inside. For the sake of an idea (non-violence), people's real lives are made worse..

Finally (sorry to go on), but earlier when I say we need to consider "what tactics will help us achieve our aims", this doesn't mean 'anything goes in the class war' because there are some tactics which are counter to our aims (bombing The Ritz, for instance, or assassinating David Cameron..).. these actions do not create the kind of movement we want as they're based on the whim of self-appointed vanguards acting for the working class. It's not based on the working class taking mass action at the point where we are strongest (i.e. strikes, occupations etc as a way to disrupt business as usual)..

Just some thoughts like.. :)

back of the net

Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 26 2011 18:52

I understand this now. I'm just not totally convinced it is enough to persuade other people. I mean if you take it to the extreme right it might just cause people to want tighter lawson activists and therefore i wouldnt see it as an effective move. There are people who will say this. I do understand now what youre saying but i don't see everyone seeing it that way. Hypothetically speaking if the government were overthrown tomorrow, how would we start to run an anarchist society and if other countries were still capitalist how would we cope with that? Also if there's no money what would happen if i travelled overseas to a capitalist society as i have no money? If the whole world was anarchist how would i contribute if visiting another community? Would there be "hotels" or aeroplanes and how would you "pay" to use them?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Mar 26 2011 19:23

Gemfish:

Quote:
I was just asking (as I am a bit confused) whether anarchists would see throwing things at shops as reasonable behaviour... I suppose the thing that stops me thinking that anarchism is the way forward is that it seems anarchists (or some) think this behaviour would be acceptable if necessry

Gemfish - don't knock it till you've tried it.

Quote:
SUMMER SALES
"Shopping should be an emotional experience. People should want to drop in." -
Mr.Quayle, director at Woolworths’ “21st Century Shopping Ltd.”, new name for Woolies in Bristol (The Times, 14/2/82).

"Just doing a bit of window shopping" -
Wood Green rioter, 1981 (LBC, July ).

admin: massive cut-and-paste removed, text viewable here:
http://libcom.org/library/who-gives-toss

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Mar 27 2011 07:35

Fair enough about too much cut and paste, but leaving just the bit at the beginning of the last part of the article linked to doesn't make much sense. Gemfish, I suspect, won't see what the relevance to what s/he is saying is. So - just a bit of cut and paste here:

Quote:
There are certain situations when dropping into a shop is a truly emotional experience. That's when people start to smash that blatantly seductive parader of the beauty of possessions, the shop window which reflects back to you the ugliness of your fundamental dispossession. Don't the vast majority dream of wrecking that fragile separation? At the same time as it titillates us with things we’ve been told we want, it prevents us from grasping them. When we smash a shop window, it's not only the miraculous display of things (with their artistic image association and their ideological free gifts) that gets shattered, but also the 'reasonable' cops in our head. The objects become what they always were - just objects, whilst the bourgeois rationale that hypocritically distinguishes between theft and property also appears for what it is: bullshit to keep us impotently yearning. How can those who resign themselves to a world which is meant to be expectantly gazed at know the simple beauty of the delightful anger hurling the brick shattering the repressive splits of this fragmented vicarious life? Perhaps they mutter "Greed...Resentment" as they greedily clutch onto their narrow resentment of those who are having a smashing time. One guy during the riot days of ’81 smashed every window in Barkers on his own - and never tried to even take anything. Often people smashed shop windows in order to nick nothing more than what they could far more easily steal from Woolworth’s on a crowded shopping day with little risk.

Gemfish's other-directed (as opposed to trying to develop his/her own self-directed opposition to this society) worries about the image of a social movement is classic leftism - ie it looks at things from the point of view of the spectator, and thus hopes to win others over through a nice image. But in the society of the spectacle, it's not image that changes people's practical attitudes but Millbank and Fortnums and Masons-type actions, accompanied by a critique of the complacency of those who tut-tut over such terrible things, and a critique of the violence of this society that spectators support through their disapproval of class violence from our side.

Fish
Offline
Joined: 20-03-11
Mar 27 2011 10:36

Samotnaf, the thing I'm trying to get my head round is basically - yes I agree with a left-wing society but anarchy begs another question. I believe a left-wing society would be the most fairl civilised society however, not everyone is good and whether people are born good is a matter of debate too. I mean what ACTUALLY seperates us from animals? Again, much a matter of debate. A baby dolphin for example has 99% DNA the same as a human. Animals still fight everyday of their lives for survival not only from other animals but from humans... so what I'm saying is violence etc is a natural trait. Animals are territorial too and even have a King or Chief. Civilisation is one answer for the difference and civilisation includes obedience to get along. All I'm saying is that it can perceived that radical left groups have the complete opposite view of right wing groups but is the extreme of either (or in fact any group "in the middle") actually going to create a better society. It seems left-wing thinking has developed out of the disgust of the right wing's unfair theories which clearly don't work but I'm still not entirely convinced an extreme left-group wouldn't be as bad in the long run. Don't misunderstand - I have very strong left-wing views but I am also quite prepared to be criticised when the left school of thought starts failing too and other people decide they can do better and a new form of "radical thinking" starts again - Conservatives!

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Mar 27 2011 12:43

It's a rainy Sunday, I'm tired, so what better way than passing the time than trying to respond to things on libcom?

Hard to know where to begin with your unpractical ideas, perspectives that i don't at all share except in the most vague way. You don't seem to have understood what I said or admitted that you haven't understood. I don't support what this society calls "left-wing views", nor do I see things in terms of a political spectrum in which you identify with something "left" or "right" or "in the middle": the problem is to struggle to centre your viewpoint and desires on yourself, overcoming the ways you're colonised by "left", "right" and "centre" and strive towards a practical understanding of your own needs in interaction with the class struggle against these external authorities.
As for all that good or bad stuff - well, first of all, judgement of whether smashing a window is "good" or "bad" is dependent on its context, and smashing The Ritz or a bank or whatever is fine, even if sometimes smashing bank windows can be a bit ritualistic. So the dominant world condemns it - what else is new? And if you oppose such things you're on the side of the dominant world. Which in your case seems to take the form of abstract questioning without consequences.
Everyone is contradictory, me and you included - both "good" and "bad", though these moral arguments say very little other than your desire to be "good" (but what does that mean?). The real question is to judge movements and individuals on their progress or retreat from going beyond "good" and "bad", in overcoming a spectator attitude to life that makes you sit and wonder, intellectually stuck in your head , about such things as

Quote:
a left-wing society would be the most fairl civilised society however, not everyone is good and whether people are born good is a matter of debate too. I mean what ACTUALLY seperates us from animals? Again, much a matter of debate. A baby dolphin for example has 99% DNA the same as a human. Animals still fight everyday of their lives for survival not only from other animals but from humans... so what I'm saying is violence etc is a natural trait. Animals are territorial too and even have a King or Chief. Civilisation is one answer for the difference and civilisation includes obedience to get along....

On the one hand i could begin to answer some of what you have meandered around with a very theoretical argument:
As has been said several times before, an aspect of the history of humanity has been the struggle to distanciate itself from "nature" and in so doing, determine itself. But, given the fact that it has always been also subject to aspects of nature's more alienated rules - the struggles for survival and the struggles over scarcity of resources - this has taken a territorial form and class form which, arguably, was perhaps necessary for humanity to reach the stage whereby such alienation could be superceded. And for the vast majority has to be superceded, because this alienation, the alienation of the commodity form, has become self-destructive for it. Survival of the majority of the species is now a revolutionary demand requiring the abolition of the irrational false imposition of "scarcity" by class power.....and I could continue in this over-general up in the air vein.

But the essential questions are questions I ask and try to answer myself:
What are you going to do that helps you advance out of this maze of abstractions? To test your ideas by practical risks & experiment?

Ketsan
Offline
Joined: 28-03-11
Mar 28 2011 02:38

I know what saturday looked like from the outside: Those newsreels of the SA smashing up shop windows. If I'm in Starbucks drinking my coffee and a guy starts kicking the window in you can safely bet that the first thing on my mind is not going to be his political views. He may see some wider context which in his mind makes kicking the window in perfectly justified and he may in fact be totally justified; I just see a guy kicking the window in. It's not even a protest because there is no apparent reason behind it. I cannot say, "He is kicking in the window for the following reason........"
There's nothing all that poltical or radical about what he's doing after all; chavs do it to bus shelters and phone booths daily, much to my annoyance. I don't like living in a pig sty and I resent the people that turn the place into one.

It's also pretty frightening and I don't mean just in the sense that having the window kicked in is frightening. I'm talking about this being the 21st Century; this being the UK where we live fairly civilised lives. Smashing stuff up is not part of our normal political discourse because the moment violence is used a truely scary message is sent out: It makes the frightening statement that causing damage and injury is acceptable if those people disagree with one's political views. That puts us right back in the dark ages. If you can smash the place up for politics, why not religion or race?

It also sends out the message that the movement has lost the debate or that they are not interested in debate which is effectively the same as saying the movement has nothing to say and is now throwing its toys out of the pram.

So the guy kicking the window in, assuming even I know why he's doing it, presents me with a choice: My nice cushy way of life where I spend saturday afternoons sipping coffee or a future where people run around smashing the place up as an acceptable form of political discourse.
"The banks have fucked us over and big business is failing but it's ok we've kicked Starbuck's window in and after we've smashed up a few more ATMs, buggered up people's travel arrangements while "defending the action" and made everyone's lives a little harder everything will be fine" is about as convincing a political argument as napalming a village in Vietnam and expecting the villagers to be overjoyed and not support the Vietcong.

Effective politics is showing people how things would be better; converting people not scaring the crap out of them.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Mar 28 2011 02:52

Great, another idiot newbie who just wants to defend their awesome life as a submissive bourgeois subject.

Ever considered that your fairly civilized life in the 21st century is based on far more violence than kicking a few windows in?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Mar 28 2011 04:26
Quote:
chavs do it to bus shelters and phone booths daily

The use of the word "chavs" shows the class basis of your

Quote:
nice cushy way of life

Nowadays a "nice cushy life" (I mean, you seriously have one?) is based on reducing the lives of others to

Quote:
a pig sty

who rightfully

Quote:
resent the people that turn the[ir] place into one.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Mar 28 2011 09:42

Ketsan, a few comments..

ketsan wrote:
Smashing stuff up is not part of our normal political discourse because the moment violence is used a truely scary message is sent out: It makes the frightening statement that causing damage and injury is acceptable if those people disagree with one's political views. That puts us right back in the dark ages. If you can smash the place up for politics, why not religion or race?

I hope you're not equating kicking in a bank's window to putting in the window of, say, a Muslim family.. the difference is quite massive..

Ketsan wrote:
It also sends out the message that the movement has lost the debate or that they are not interested in debate which is effectively the same as saying the movement has nothing to say and is now throwing its toys out of the pram.

Mate, this isn't a debate. Even if everyone agreed with 'our' side, it wouldn't matter.. perhaps (at the very most) we'd get a change of government to Labour, who also say they believe in the need for cuts! Great stuff.. in the final instance, this will be about power.. if we strike, occupy, blockade major shops and transport hubs, we will hit the economy and only then they'll listen.

Even then they'll still say we're not interested in debate because the only time they think we are is when we do pointless A-B marches.. which they don't have to listen to! Some debate! smile

And last thing, I agree with other posters about your chav comments. Without wanting to be too harsh on you personally, I think taking the piss out of 'chavs' is basically the last refuge of the middle-class bigot who now - since political correctness doesn't allow them to take the piss out of ethnic minorities, women and gays - have turned to working class whites as the last people they can publicly mock..

Ketsan
Offline
Joined: 28-03-11
Mar 28 2011 14:23
Quote:
The use of the word "chavs" shows the class basis of your

Not really. It just says that there's group of people in my mind that I identify as chavs. Beyond that I could be some landed multimillionaire earl or a poverty stricken ex-coal miner for all you know.

Quote:
Nowadays a "nice cushy life" (I mean, you seriously have one?) is based on reducing the lives of others to (a pig sty)

Again you're making assumptions. I have my material needs sorted and a lot of political freedoms; that's pretty cushy: I have friends being shot at trying to get what I have. Futher no-one could reduce my life to a pig sty; it's not possible. Not on any kind of perminent basis anyway. Having been in a pig sty I'm fairly well motivated and equipped not to go back!

It's not like they were living in the lap of luxury and then one day someone reduced them to where ever it is that they are now. They started off in shit and they're still there.

Quote:
who rightfully

Quote:

resent the people that turn the[ir] place into one

Perhaps but that doesn't excuse or justify smashing the place up. It achieves nothing, except maybe increasing everyones tax bills.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Mar 28 2011 14:50

Well sidestepped Ketsan.. your response above allows you to save face while not engaging with any of the arguments presented to you..

Who wasn't interested in debate again?

Indigo's picture
Indigo
Offline
Joined: 12-01-11
Mar 28 2011 14:57

The 'property destruction and how it makes us look' debate has been thoroughly covered (in my opinion) already, I think you should to look at the 'hijacked by anarchists!' forum topic it should be helpful.

Ketsan
Offline
Joined: 28-03-11
Mar 28 2011 15:05

This idiot newbie hasn't failed to achieve the same objectives using the same tactics and strategy for how many decades now?

Quote:
Ever considered that your fairly civilized life in the 21st century is based on far more violence than kicking a few windows in?

Right so, do the logic. If everything we have is based on violence and it's not working how is it that yet more violence is part of the answer?

Violence only works when you've already won by which I mean only when you have more power to comit violence than the opposition can you usefully employ violence. Otherwise you get squished and frankly you're getting squished.

In any case you're missing the point totally. The vast majority of people never see the violence; people don't like to see it so it's kept hiden away. The only violence they see is you lot and people don't like violence so they don't like you or your ideas. Not that they even know what they are and they never will do because they don't like the only thing you're apparently offering: chaos.

If you're going to get anywhere you need to win hearts and minds and you're not. You're not even bothering to try and convince us that our awesome lives as submissive bourgeois subjects need changing. You're just reminding us that we need a ruling elite that can use violence to keep people like you from interupting our submissive bourgeois life which we've established that we're reasonably happy with.

Everytime you smash something we see the abyss we could fall into but for the state and we cling to the state for protection. You're helping the state.
Fighting the people to liberate the people makes no sense, it causes a defencive reaction. People have to be able look at you and think, "Yep, that's a better way of doing things, that's what I want."

You need to show you can build not just destroy.

Ketsan
Offline
Joined: 28-03-11
Mar 28 2011 15:08
Quote:
Well sidestepped Ketsan.. your response above allows you to save face while not engaging with any of the arguments presented to you..

Who wasn't interested in debate again?

.

I'm sorry was there an argument there? Cuz all I saw where statements. "You say chav so you're a bourgois capitalist running dog lacky person who lives off the blood of the oppressed workers."

There wasn't an argument to side step.

Indigo's picture
Indigo
Offline
Joined: 12-01-11
Mar 28 2011 15:11

I don't know about anyone else but i find the prospect of going through this debate again a fairly grim prospect, Ketsan I suggest you take time to look through the site a bit more, it's a great resource and there's articles/forum posts on this that phrase things better than i could, hopefully that should answer some of you're questions....

Ketsan
Offline
Joined: 28-03-11
Mar 28 2011 15:41
Quote:
I hope you're not equating kicking in a bank's window to putting in the window of, say, a Muslim family.. the difference is quite massive..

In both cases its an attempt to make a political point through an act of destuction. The difference is tiny. The intent is the same; the act is the same, the result is the same.

Quote:
Mate, this isn't a debate. Even if everyone agreed with 'our' side, it wouldn't matter.. perhaps (at the very most) we'd get a change of government to Labour, who also say they believe in the need for cuts! Great stuff.. in the final instance, this will be about power.. if we strike, occupy, blockade major shops and transport hubs, we will hit the economy and only then they'll listen.

If everyone agreed who would be left to oppose you? If everyone agreed then even the labour government would agree, I think they're covered in "everyone." Winning the debate wins converts and builds numbers, numbers are power. With enough people you don't even need to strike. The battle is not between you and the state the battle is between you and the people. You need to convince the ordinary guy in the street. Mao knew that; he brought the peasents on to his side.

The state is too powerful you can't fight it directly. Sun Tzu pointed this out 2500 years ago, it's not news. Only the people can over throw the state so you ignore them at your peril.

Quote:
And last thing, I agree with other posters about your chav comments. Without wanting to be too harsh on you personally, I think taking the piss out of 'chavs' is basically the last refuge of the middle-class bigot who now - since political correctness doesn't allow them to take the piss out of ethnic minorities, women and gays - have turned to working class whites as the last people they can publicly mock..

Oh I do not mock chavs or take the piss out of them. There is nothing more serious or sad or depressing than a group of people without aspiration or hope or interest in education. People who have nothing and I'm not talking material things here I mean people who are dead in spirit.
Yes it's annoying and I dislike them for being mindlessly destructive but at the same time I can understand why.

I take the piss out of people who emulate them because they think it's good politics. They're half baked in that they've sorta half realised that something needs to be done but haven't quiet realised that revolutions are dime a dozen and there's an established methodology and that they're ignoring it completely in favour of petty acts of vandalism. Those people I mock endlessly because they have no excuse. They have a goal, there is a tried and tested way of doing it and they're just not even trying. It doesn't comport with how they like doing things so they do things their own way. For decades. And decades. And decades.

Dunno, maybe that's just my middle class way of looking at things: pick a goal, get the education you need to achieve it, work hard, get it. But then the succesful revolutionaries tend to be middle class. Conundrum eh? I suppose success is too bourgois though.