Skip to main content

View Diary: We Are a Vision of the Future, On the Black Bloc: Part I (343 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  AoT is extending a hand in peace. (0+ / 0-)

    Making peace can be uncomfortable as hell and sometimes involves talking about things that are not peaceful.  

    One thing that really helps is if we come to this in a spirit of solution-seeking and are willing to speak in enough detail so there's something coherent to debate and discuss.  

    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:50:08 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There is nothing to discuss. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      Diarist is an advocate and active enabler of criminal violence.  

      Such people are generally not welcome, well, anywhere.  Nor should they be.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:05:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if Obama dug in his heels in... (0+ / 0-)

        ... the Middle East and refused to let certain people come to the peace table, we would be getting nowhere fast, and our service members would not be on their way home.

        Really: we have his example to live up to.  Making peace is never easy, that's why we call it making peace rather than getting peace for free.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:42:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure I get the relevance of that analogy. (0+ / 0-)

          Diarist is making the case for violence.   That is not something that needs to be debated, any more than making the case for Ron Paul or the Paul Ryan budget.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:58:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  like this: (0+ / 0-)

            There are certain elements among both Palestinians and Israelis, who each side points to in accusing the other of being violent in a way as to suggest it's not worthwhile trying to make peace with them.  

            Now if both sides dig in their heels and aren't willing to talk, or if even one side does that, the situation remains a stalemate and the violence continues in both directions.

            There are certain elements in Afghanistan that the US could make the same case about, but instead Obama has directed his subordinates to be willing to talk with them.  

            And what I'm suggesting is, we can criticize tactics without attacking individual persons.  That's a step forward.  

            Ask anyone with any background in peace & conflict studies, diplomacy, labor/management negotiation, or any other relevant field, they'll tell you something similar.  

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:14:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This is assinine (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        Whether you like it or not, anarchism has had and continues to exert, a profound influence on a generation that came of political age in the 1990s. This generation has been crucial to the development of key mass popular movements over the past two decades. From the anti-globalization movement to the peace movement to the occupy movement, their participation has been critical.

        To the degree that the national dialog has been moved from the worship of austerity to the crises of economic and political inequity, the lion share of the credit goes to these activists, inspired by the vision of an egalitarian, humane and non-coercive society that has always lain at the heart of anarchism. Even those who don't identify as anarchists have been influenced by anarchisms methods and concepts.

        To assert that there is nothing to be discussed is to imitate the ostrich.  

           

      •  The whole point is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe wobblie, G2geek

        the legitimacy of the definition of "criminal".  Are you saying that something is criminal simply because the State says so?  Good luck convincing an Anarchist of that!  Are you instead saying that the definition of criminal depends of individuals or communities or some organization other than a State?  Congratulations!  Then you ARE an Anarchist!

        •  Abe Lincoln: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          netop
          “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg”
          Pretending that states don't make laws that apply to citizens, including the definition of crimes, does not make that fantasy a reality.

          Anarchists, just like religious fundamentalists and anti-tax weirdos, are free to deny the theoretical legitimacy of secular states.   That does not mean they are any less bound by their laws.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:23:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bound only by coercion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe wobblie

            Since when does might make right?

            •  Coercion is a necessary element (0+ / 0-)

              of civilization.

              Otherwise, men would rape at will, people would steal and cheat and murder at will, etc.

              People cannot live together without it.  Not in any significant numbers, for any significant period of time.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:14:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So the job of the state is to coerce? (0+ / 0-)

                By force?

                Where do democracy and freedom enter in?

                What are citizens supposed to do if the state uses excessive coercion?

                What if laws get passed by ....say, Republicans...that give the state too much power to coerce.

                What if citizens then use the electoral process, but then Democrats keep and enforce those same excessive laws?

                What recourse and rights do citizens have when the state becomes too "coercive?"

                •  The state represents the people. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Markoff Chaney

                  If the results of the democratic process displease you, that does not invalidate them.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:13:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh really! (0+ / 0-)

                    You really believe that? You don't think the state represents the entrenched power structure rather than the people? The MIC, the Banking Industry, The Plutocracy? You think the state represents The People?

                    You think what we have, what the status qou, IS is a representation of The People?

                    So you think the state perfectly represents you???

                    There is nothing you would change?

                    Are you naive? Or merely representing your Authoritarian masters?

                    Lol. that is the funniest thing I have heard someone try to  propose in a LONG time

                    "The state represents the people."
                    Are you REALLY saying that with a straight face?
                    •  It "represents" the people, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joe wobblie

                      rather than people making decisions and taking action from themselves.  That's the problem.

                    •  Yes, those laws against rape and burglary (0+ / 0-)

                      are part of the plutocracy's scheme.

                      Under your ideology, the choice would be between carte blanche for the worst kinds of violence, or a system of vigilante justice.

                      Maybe when violence and selfishness has been bred out of us anarchy will be something more than a daydream.

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Sat May 05, 2012 at 01:12:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Try reading the comment (0+ / 0-)

                        I actually wrote, and responding to the one I actually wrote....not the one in your head you imagined I wrote.

                        Hint: there was nothing about rape and burglary.

                        For bonus points you can describe "my ideology" as it appears in your head. Since you are psychic and know me so well and all.

                        Sheesh,

                        •  the state is responsible for preventing (0+ / 0-)

                          rapes, burglary etc.

                          You were on a rant about how the state lacks legitimacy, typical anarchist crapola.

                          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                          by Geekesque on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:21:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

                            You have more projections than a multi-plex!

                            I am not, nor have I ever been an anarchist. Those questions are ones that should be asked by EVERY citizen of a democracy.

                            Are you ever going to answer them, or are you just going to keep chasing your tail around the inside of the little biased reality bubble inside your head?

                            C'mon man! You can do it if you try!

                          •  You reacted with disbelief at the proposition (0+ / 0-)

                            that a source of authority--the state--needs to enforce laws, i.e.. exert coercion for civilization to endure.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Sat May 05, 2012 at 10:51:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            Again, you constructed some stereotype in your head and are trying to fit me into it.

                            Why?

                            Answer the questions?

                            Or are they too scary for you? Are you too afraid to step out of your rigidly programmed Authoritarian mindset to even consider them? Are you afraid that you may have to give up your carefully protected privilege if you think about scary ideas that don't conform to your comfortable privileged version of reality?

                            A reality where you obviously have to reduce anyone you disagree with to some inferior stereotype to even deal with them?

                          •  There has never existed a perfect democratic (0+ / 0-)

                            statedemocratic state that treated the powerful and powerless with equal dignity.

                            But, the need for a state/tribe/other authority structure is basic social contract stuff.

                            .  "I show in the first place that the state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is none other than a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things."  </  Other parts of Leviathan have been discredited, but this has never been plausibly challenged.  People are not lining up in Canada or Sweden to live in Somalia or Waziristan.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:24:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree! (0+ / 0-)
                            But, the need for a state/tribe/other authority structure is basic social contract stuff.
                            I am not, nor have I ever been an anarchist.  That is something you made up in your head.

                            I shall reprint my questions from above.

                            What are citizens supposed to do if the state uses excessive coercion?

                            What if laws get passed by ....say, Republicans...that give the state too much power to coerce.

                            What if citizens then use the electoral process, but then Democrats keep and enforce those same excessive laws?

                            What recourse and rights do citizens have when the state becomes too "coercive?"

                            ....

                            You really believe that? You don't think the state represents the entrenched power structure rather than the people? The MIC, the Banking Industry, The Plutocracy? You think the state represents The People?

                            You think what we have, what the status qou, IS is a representation of The People?

                            I will restate them, starting with....

                            IS it possible in your mind for a democracy and the electoral process to STOP representing the will of the people and shift to representing the will of  rich, politically powerful institutions?

                            Is it possible for BOTH Parties to enable/support that? (Thus in part negating the electoral process)

                            Are we there yet?

                            If so what do the people do about it?

                            If you can get through that, we can have a discussion about the role of "anarchism."

                            Your image of me was wrong. My image of you is that you will support the state no matter how hot the frog water gets. Am I wrong too?

                          •  Of course those are problems. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Markoff Chaney

                            And that happens in virtually every democracy.  The rich and powerful will game any system--tribal, democratic, authoritarian.  

                            As to what options are available, that is very situation specific.  The options facing Greeks are different than those facing Americans which are different than those facing Mexicans which are different than those facing Israelis or Palestinians.

                            Certainly, a system where anyone who objects to a policy can opt out of compliance won't work, just as the right of the people to collectively resist a government that lacks legitimacy is undeniable.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:55:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well said! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            So I posit that it is "the rich" who have opted out. Not out of a policy, but out of the social contract that policies attempt to define and codify.

                            I further posit that they have used an "idea" (a set of beliefs, memes and slogans....and of course plain old corruption) to get the government to back the idea that they are allowed to opt out. Even, through policies they have bought, encouraged to do so.

                            So how do the people fight back against that "idea" and bring the social contract back into balance?

                          •  I wish I had the answer. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Markoff Chaney

                            Brings to mind an observation that you can judge the trajectory of a democracy by its ability to tax the rich.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:39:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well the only way to fight an idea (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            is with another idea. Almost always some version of the opposite of the original idea that is propelling the situation.

                            So we have  idea that is propelling the situation, in this case the rich and the government colluding against the people.....what would be the opposite of that?

                            I urge you to review the socio/political situation that allowed the reforms that once were the heart of the Democratic party....the new deal.

                            What was the idea that convinced the PTB/rich of the time that they were better off accepting the new deal.

                            Because there are only two ways to get them to change; force (and good luck with that!) or convincing them that something really bad was going to happen if they didn't accept the new deal.

                            And THAT...

                            is where the idea of Anarchism/Radical Socialism comes into play.

                            The sooner we can introduce the idea into the conversation.....

                            The less likely we will need to embrace the very unpleasant and undesirable actuality of Radical or Anarchist tactics.

                            And that
                            is the extent of my "support" for Anarchists. As a weapon in the Battle of Ideas.

                            Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
                            Martin Luther King, Jr.
                            You say above you wish you had the answer, I propose that waging the Battle of Ideas is the answer, the only one that has ever worked.

                            So we only have one choice, realy. Try to channel the Radical Populism into a constructive channel, or try to dismiss, ridicule, and tamp it down. So I leave you with this...

                            Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
                            John F. Kennedy
              •  Fuck that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe wobblie
                Coercion is a necessary element of civilization.
                That's not civilization, but organized barbarity.
        •  Rand, (0+ / 0-)

          brace yourself; you have no authority to decide who is or isn't an anarchist.

          •  The principles are clear (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe wobblie

            Is the State to be obeyed under any circumstances?  This is not overly-broad; rather, it implies that far more people are anarchists at heart than is assumed.

            •  to clarify (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe wobblie
              Is the State to be obeyed under any circumstances?
              i.e. "are there circumstances under which the State should be disobeyed" not "are there circumstances under which the State should be obeyed"
            •  Rand (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Geekesque

              nobody likes being ordered around, that doesn't make them anarchists. Likewise, obeying traffic signals,environmental regs., sanitation codes, etc., doesn't make one a Statist.

              •  Okay, taking your clarification into account (0+ / 0-)

                are you aware that the principle you cite is actually recognized in US legal jurisprudence? As such it can hardly be considered a standard for determining what is anarchism, unless you think a legal principle can be anarchist.

                •  I think it can be self-contradicting, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joe wobblie

                  meaning it is not based on any concrete principles- sooner or later such a system will pile on so many internal contradictions that it will fall to pieces like an old quilt.

                  •  law is contradictory by design (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Geekesque

                    since it partakes of both precedent  and contingency. Contingent circumstances can allow for departures from precedent as well as providing justification for violations of existing law. The fact remains that as a matter of law, US citizens aren't required to defer to state authority in every circumstance.

                    •  From the top (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joe wobblie

                      Geekesque declared that those who engage in or advocate criminal activity should be ostracized.  But now you're saying that the list of criminal acts is not static.  How can that list be altered if no one engages in or advocates listed activities?  Similarly, how can items ever be added to the list, if there are not deeper principles?

                      Anarchism means orienting to those deeper principles, rather than anything more superficial.

                      •  Not all criminal activity. (0+ / 0-)

                        Criminal violence.

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:15:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Civil Disobedience (0+ / 0-)

                        is an accepted form of agitation. Thoreau's treatise on Civil Disobedience is a classic. The plant occupations of the thirties and the civil rights revolution of the sixties are inconceivable without CD. The violation of unjust laws for socio-political ends are a well established feature of US political history and culture. I'm fairly sure that Geekesque would recognize this if it was pointed out.

                        The parting of the ways is when we come to grips with the question of which laws should be violated and in what context. There is a world of difference between the mass refusal to obey Jim Crow laws, draft resistance or sit down strikes and individual acts of vandalism or running street battles with the cops, particularly when the latter endanger people who have not consented to the actions.

                        As for how you change the laws violated, that is why so much CD stresses submitting to arrest, either to allow for legal challenges (see the plowshares defendants/Berrigan Bros.) or in order to overload the system and render the law moot (see the wobbly free speech fights, SOA Watch and, again, the struggle against Jim Crow.)

                        The important thing to recognize is that there is no theoretical or tactical "magic bullet" that can be applied to every situation. The belief in such is a dangerous illusion. The end doesn't justify the means but the end must dictate the means.

      •  Diarist is a friend of mine. (0+ / 0-)

        And is welcome here as far as I'm concerned.

        Talking about any idea should not be a problem.

        I stand with Murrow on this.

        "We will not walk in fear, one of another."

        Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:09:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  People who engage in acts of violence (0+ / 0-)

          against property and police are generally considered undesirables in any area where people live.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:38:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Censorship does not prevent violence (0+ / 0-)

            And I don't appreciate the way in which you assume the mantle of deciding who is "undesirable" and who's not.

            Luckily, the decision on this isn't going to be made by either of us.

            Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:16:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site