Jump to content
Little Miss Sunshine

THIS is WHAT A FUCKING POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE!!

Recommended Posts

Oh and I believe the RNC will feel like they've been fucked by a train by the time they leave the Twin Cities. And half of my friends will be in the Ramsey County Jail.

 

Whoooo...

Edited by policygnat
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
his complaint is with the word civil.

 

Civil rights are distinct from natural or human rights, in the sense that they are given to us by the government. It then is contradictory for an anarchist to complain about a lack of civil rights, because that implies a change in government policy, or an addition to the bill of rights, rather than the abolition or movement away from government itself.

 

SO yeah, he's kind of right. Anarchists might like rights, but they don't like civil.

 

or at least that was my interpretation. don't let me put words in your mouth

 

Thanks, and yes that is what I was talking about from the very first post. I really dont feel like clarifying to them anymore because they just take it as an opportunity to go on and on about why they hate the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penguin, I agree with you on the definition, yes. There's nothing to argue about in that respect. However, it's only natural for an anarchist to complain about a lack of civil rights - it's evidence of authoritarianism, something that anarchists hate more than anything.

Edited by Hellfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try: an anarchist complaining about an extreme exercise of state power.

 

Why, that's only...completely consistent! Lol.

 

i love you, louise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is many anarchists oppose things like the Endangered Species Act, as it is an example of state power trumping individual freedoms.

I can't speak directly to what other anarchists think about the ESA, but I can generally say that anarchists usually view ecological destruction as resulting largely from capitalism and the State. In opposition to both of these things, many anarchists propose alternative lifestyles that are environmentally friendly. I'm not the most radical among the environmentalist factions in the movement, but it would be worthwhile to read (or read about) someone like Murray Bookchin to get a sense of what some folks believe.

 

Edit: I should clarify that you are correct for so-called "anarcho"-capitalists, but not for anarchists who are indebted to the libertarian socialist tradition.

Edited by maxpow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It then is contradictory for an anarchist to complain about a lack of civil rights, because that implies a change in government policy, or an addition to the bill of rights, rather than the abolition or movement away from government itself.

That's not entirely true. I should clarify that I don't plan to get into a huge rights debate. I'm not much of a rights-based theorist, but let's provisionally define civil rights as those practices by members of a polity in relationship to questions of governance that should not be abrogated by its government or the government's agents; you know, things like freedom of speech and free assembly. My argument is that it is logically consistent for anarchists to say that those practices (under the umbrella term of rights) should be allowed to exist as long as the State exists and simultaneously claim that it would be better, on net, if the State were to not exist. It is logically consistent for anarchists to claim that the removal of civil rights for a certain group of people is a uniquely oppressive action that demonstrates the violent tendency of the statist mode of organization. It would be foolish to claim that we would have no concept of or like civil rights under some sort of anarchist model of organization since free discourse is much more essential to that model of governance than to our current one.

Edited by maxpow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone else think this might be the result of hippies being stupid?

...

 

Worthy of pepper spray? Probably not. Obstruction of rights? Probably. Could they have avoided it by being a little less frightening? I think so.

 

Again, not saying that they weren't justified, but lets think twice before we cry wolf.

It sounds fairly likely that you haven't been to many protests. You might have good reasons for that, but people who have been involved in them usually understand that the police often act more as provocateurs than protectors -- especially for people they dislike such as anarchists. To be sure, anarchists have made huge amounts of strategic and tactical errors throughout the years that have resulted in their unnecessary (though still quite unjustified) oppression by agents of the State, but it is often (though not always) the State itself that unnecessarily provokes immediate situations that result in violence. Let's not become apologists for apparatuses of domination just because we don't like dreadlocks or tie-dye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just thought the idea of anarchists marching in unison was humorous.

 

"Yay, I'm different. Just like everyone else!"

 

Man, if I were an anarchist, I would be so much cooler and so much more righter.

You're confusing punks with anarchists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really dont feel like clarifying to them anymore because they just take it as an opportunity to go on and on about why they hate the government.

I think I responded substantively to the questions raised by your posts without using them as a place to unnecessarily rant about the evils of the State. Your decision to cease posting is just as well, however, because you were making yourself look pretty silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxpow, where are you?

I live in DC.

 

PS. Sorry for the multiple posts. Just easier for me to click "quote" than anything else.

 

Edit: \/\/\/\/ Hmm, I never really looked at the option. Guess it will make things easier in the future.

Edited by maxpow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds fairly likely that you haven't been to many protests. You might have good reasons for that, but people who have been involved in them usually understand that the police often act more as provocateurs than protectors -- especially for people they dislike such as anarchists. To be sure, anarchists have made huge amounts of strategic and tactical errors throughout the years that have resulted in their unnecessary (though still quite unjustified) oppression by agents of the State, but it is often (though not always) the State itself that unnecessarily provokes immediate situations that result in violence. Let's not become apologists for apparatuses of domination just because we don't like dreadlocks or tie-dye.

 

I'll agree with that. And no, I stay home and cut cards. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're implying that anarchy suppresses people's rights, then you clearly have little to no grasp on anarchist philosophy.

 

edit: lol. beat me to it.

 

reputation_neg.gifTHIS is WHAT A FUCKING... August 28th, 2008 01:51 PM Power is unchecked in anarchy except by other power. That is a state of exception to "rights." Please be respectful to arguments you don't understand instead of disregaurding them with arrogant abandon.

 

The only problem with your rep is that in an anarchist's world, there are no power structures that need to be checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with anarchism is that you're not hot shit. Okay. You are against oppression and all this bad shit and all other anarchists can be against it too (even though they're not all against it... I tend to think anarchism comes from a micro-fascist impulse. For the sake of argument though I'll give you this one for now). The problem is that in the anarchist revolutionary break, the rest of the people in the world don't magically become anarchists too. The anarcho-capitalists are evil but they're at least more honest about what anarchy looks like then normal run of the mill anarchists. You can't xerox the a revolution--you can't fiat that everyone stands against what you and your anarchist buddies belive. So whither comes the question of rights? Penguin is pointing out that it's a bit ironic to be standing up for "rights" when the scarry cops with guns would have no obligation to not beat the living shit out of you just for standing there if there was no democratic nation-state to punish them for said action. Of course you don't endorce oppression. So fucking what? You don't provide any means to check oppression other than counter-oppression (getting guns and sticks and fighting back) which seems to me like the opposite of rejecting oppression. It seems like you construct a state with the express purpose of putting physical violence itself in a state of exception which cannot hope to do anything but gaurantee oppression writ norm.

 

You don't have to ultimately agree with this argument but it makes you look like a bunch of children to be cavalier and disregaurd it as asinine. No one is going to give you points for pretending his argument is stupid rather than showing how you think his argument is stupid. And the more careful and respectful your response is the better. Even if you score some e-rage points by acting like tools you will never change minds in the real world that way. And if you pretend to be an anarchist online without trying every day to live that choice to be an arachist then you're just a coffee shop revolutionary and you're not worth my time.

 

xoxo,

-Mike Leap

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reputation_neg.gifTHIS is WHAT A FUCKING... August 28th, 2008 01:51 PM Power is unchecked in anarchy except by other power. That is a state of exception to "rights." Please be respectful to arguments you don't understand instead of disregaurding them with arrogant abandon.

 

The only problem with your rep is that in an anarchist's world, there are no power structures that need to be checked.

But there is someone who always strives for power in society and nature.

I don't know much about anarchist philosophy,does it take non-traditional power structures into account, like if one person uses brute or mental strength over other weaker persons.

I'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reputation_neg.gifTHIS is WHAT A FUCKING... August 28th, 2008 01:51 PM Power is unchecked in anarchy except by other power. That is a state of exception to "rights." Please be respectful to arguments you don't understand instead of disregaurding them with arrogant abandon.

 

The only problem with your rep is that in an anarchist's world, there are no power structures that need to be checked.

 

There are no power structures? What about the family? What about the community fascism that was so deadly to so many in the years of racism? Do you fiat away the church and religion? Is there any propery? Do people own themselves? Where is the delineation between acceptable property and non-acceptable property? Are there schools? Those are power structures. Are people allowed to learn anything? Learning implies a crystalized position of power in the hands of the teacher. Or are you fiating a world where some raptor-jesus-sky-fairy has gone around changing the basic conditions of metaphysics so that power struggle no longer leads to power structure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem with anarchism is that you're not hot shit.

I'm not sure that I ever claimed I was "hot shit." My original argument was that the State often disregards the social contract that it usually imposes on everyone else in the case of people who would like to see a radical break from the status quo, namely anarchists in this case. If I was "arrogant" in my response to The Penguin, it is for two reasons: (1) his post demonstrated both arrogance and ignorance and (2) he gave me a pretty ridiculous neg rep, which apparently isn't too uncommon. Furthermore, the tone of your post ironically gives me the idea that you believe you are hot shit. So cool down and try to have a discussion. I'm not gonna throw rocks at you.

 

 

... I tend to think anarchism comes from a micro-fascist impulse. For the sake of argument though I'll give you this one for now).

For the sake of argument, I won't give this one to you. If you mean absolute and unbroken "chaos" by anarchy, then perhaps you are correct... though I'm not sure how that works with the regimented order of fascism. But that's not what anarchy means and that's not what it has meant as a social philosophy since its inception. It's what others have slandered it as, but it has never been the argument of any credible thinkers in the tradition. The O around the A stands for order, though many punkish anarchists often aren't aware of this. If you are saying that some people who call themselves anarchists act from a micro-fascist impulse (how is this different from a fascist impulse?), then that is certainly a more plausible argument. But, at its base level, this is an ideological assertion that lacks any solid evidence.

 

The problem is that in the anarchist revolutionary break, the rest of the people in the world don't magically become anarchists too.

That the world won't magically become anarchist at the drop of a hat is pretty clearly true. But most anarchists don't believe this. Most of us have a more sober version of the reality of things (though I could point to some exceptions). We often realize that revolution will not happen 10 minutes after a DNC protest, but that revolution is a social process that involves the building of dense networks of solidarity and mutual aid in order to create an alternative society, both ideologically and materially. You can disagree with whether or not it's effective or right, but the fact of the matter is that we understand that we can't simply fiat the mindset of everyone in the world.

 

Of course you don't endorce oppression. So fucking what? You don't provide any means to check oppression other than counter-oppression (getting guns and sticks and fighting back) which seems to me like the opposite of rejecting oppression. It seems like you construct a state with the express purpose of putting physical violence itself in a state of exception which cannot hope to do anything but gaurantee oppression writ norm.

First, you should really work on your spelling in this paragraph. It takes away from the force of your argument. Second, I am not willing to grant that fighting back against oppression is counter-oppression. It's called liberation. If I were to stab and kill someone who was trying to rape me on a daily basis, should we condemn that action as "counter-oppression"? Probably not. You can disagree with the applicability of that analogy to the anarchist struggle, but I think it is clear that fighting in self-defense and in the name of liberation have a meaningful distinction from counter-oppression. The last part of your post seems to be a lot of unintelligible jargon, but I do not think that we are putting violence in a "state of exception" (I would be curious to hear why you think this is applicable in movements without any claim or desire for State sovereignty). Anarchy is not chaos and it is not a Hobbesian state of nature.

 

You don't have to ultimately agree with this argument but it makes you look like a bunch of children to be cavalier and disregaurd it as asinine. No one is going to give you points for pretending his argument is stupid rather than showing how you think his argument is stupid.

I think we did show that his argument is uninformed on the point of anarchist philosophy. I didn't just call names.

 

 

And the more careful and respectful your response is the better. Even if you score some e-rage points by acting like tools you will never change minds in the real world that way. And if you pretend to be an anarchist online without trying every day to live that choice to be an arachist then you're just a coffee shop revolutionary and you're not worth my time.

I'm not sure I've be disrespectful in my responses and I don't think they are filled with rage, though it seems like there is a bit of it seething in the background of yours. And I'm not really sure that I'm "pretending" to be an anarchist, but I agree that anarchism should be more than just chatting about in bourgeois salons.

 

Edit: Apparently Penguin didn't neg rep me, though I assumed he had since it came from about the same time as his response to my initial criticism of his post. Apologies for the incorrect assumption.

Edited by maxpow
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reputation_neg.gifTHIS is WHAT A FUCKING... August 28th, 2008 01:51 PM Power is unchecked in anarchy except by other power. That is a state of exception to "rights." Please be respectful to arguments you don't understand instead of disregaurding them with arrogant abandon.

 

The only problem with your rep is that in an anarchist's world, there are no power structures that need to be checked.

I agree with Foucault's suspicion of Chomsky's somewhat similar (though less total) claim. In this, I would point you to Todd May's work on poststructuralist anarchism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your version of anarchy is very utopian and requires you to kill off anyone that might potentially involve themselves in a form of hierarchization. Stop wanting to genocide people. It's quite useless. Your utopia will never come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that these answers are how I envision anarchism, and not representitive of all anarchists. The issues you raise are debated hotly within anarchism, but everyone agrees that the goal is to minimalize or eradicate domination and/or power structures while still fullfilling the necessary societal functions. This means most of your questions can simply be answered, "No, not if they require a dominating power structure." I'm just giving examples to help illustrate.

 

There are no power structures? What about the family?

Interesting that you think the family has to be a power structure (and that it's the first thing you come up with when deciding to list power structures). While I understand that sometimes parents with young children have to act to prevent them accidentally harming themselves, and that act can be an exercise of power in some senses, I don't think the structure of the family has to be hierarchical or based in power. If the structure is, anyone in a family who notices, say, someone else about to stick their hand on a hot burner without realizing that they will be burned, should grab that person's hand, that's not a structural power inequity. It's non-hierarchal mutual aid.

 

There are families, but they're more like associations of individuals looking out for each other instead of traditional families with parents (and husbands) as the bosses.

 

What about the community fascism that was so deadly to so many in the years of racism?

You'll have to explain further what you mean before I can explain how an anarchist community might deal with these issues. However, given that racism (especially white supremacy, which is what you're referring to) is a power structure, the answer is probably no. If there is facism or racism, it's not anarchism.

 

Do you fiat away the church and religion?

I'll leave the fiat question for later. But as far as what anarchist religion looks like, most people probably envision it as non-organized religion (or a lack thereof). However, I think a non-hierarchally organized church is consistent with anarchism. You can believe in God, study holy books and theology, and worship in community with others without exerting power over them.

 

Liberation theology is an example of anarchist religion.

 

Is there any propery? Do people own themselves? Where is the delineation between acceptable property and non-acceptable property?

 

Property is something you'll get widly varrying answers on if you talk to anarchists. It ranges from the notorious statement that "property is theft" to slightly more moderate acceptances of Lockeian property norms (essentially, if you use it and take care of it on your own, you should be allowed to determine what happens to it and people shouldn't take it without asking). One way of thinking about it is that property as we know it depends upon the state. Money has no value if it is not enforced and garunteed by a government. However, all societies have to have a mechanism for deciding who gets to decide what happens to certain material resources and objects. So, anarchism for me would probably have a lot of communal sharing of resources (ie, no one owns the sky or the water or the trees or land), but if people put work into creating something they get to decide what happens to it (ie, if you collect the materials for a rocking chair and build it yourself, and leave it on your porch, people shouldn't take it but if they sit in it it's probably okay).

 

Why is property necessarily hierarchy?

 

Are there schools? Are people allowed to learn anything? Learning implies a crystalized position of power in the hands of the teacher.

Of course people are allowed to learn things! Who would be around to stop you from learning what you'd like to learn?

 

The idea that learning requires a powerful, dominating teacher is also ridiculous. You can learn by doing, by receiving an explanation from a peer, by reading, or any number of ways. Even education at the hands of a teacher doesn't have to be dominating. I was taught debate in a way that was compeltely non-dominating -- my attendence was voluntary at squad meetings, the material was to be viewed as guidelines rather than doctrine, everyone (from the official "coach" to grad assistants to older students to my fellow newbies) helped teach each other, all people were viewed as having a valuable contribution, and there was a lot of learning-by-doing. I have a friend who did his regular schoolwork at a charter school which functioned similarly.

 

There might be schools, but they'd look radically different. They might mirror, for instance, Montessori education or group research or self-study or apprenticeship (voluntarily entered into, of course). That kind of education can work -- many debate teams operate on those principles, so do many charter and home schools, and many historically "great" people (like Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln) had self-directed education.

 

Or are you fiating a world where some raptor-jesus-sky-fairy has gone around changing the basic conditions of metaphysics so that power struggle no longer leads to power structure?

You've switched discussions. We were originally discussing what anarchist theory believes is a good idea. You were asking about goals -- what does an anarchist society look like? What type of society are we striving for? What do our political theories look like? Are we internally consistent? Because of that, of course you're getting the "perfect world" type of answer. You're asking about the world post-plan, essentially.

 

Now you're asking what the plan is. How do we get to anarchism? Everyone has a different route, but generally it involves convincing people to initiate social change. I think this takes generations, at least, of using a variety of methods to convince people (debating, discussing, teaching, raising awareness, etc.) and it probably also takes some changes in the system (ie, legal reform which removes laws that oppress people, more libertarian methods of schooling in public schools, etc) in addition to people independently choosing to live differently (communes, cohousing, charter cities, changing the way we choose to relate to others, etc.). Others disagree with some or all parts of this.

 

But like I said, that's an entirely different question.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stop being fags. if you don't want to get arrested or have your right "infringed upon" then move to another fucking country or kill yourself.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...