ALERT: The Anonymous Group - Anarchist Criminals

And you base this on what facts?

 

He IS an anarchist! your the one that thinks Obama is communist.

 

Not all leftists are unemployed (if you believe were all like you have described you really no nothing about us), and secondly I am not out protesting for free stuff. I am doing this for others.

 

I absolutely agree but I retain the ability to note which is which after they have occurred.

 

Yeah, they talk about it, but they really aren't for it. Even their flavor of the moment candidate, Herman Cain, can't name a single thing he'd cut.

 

look at my sig.

I'm getting a bit confused now as to who said what or what you mean by this. Anarchists follow anarchism. The goal of anarchism is communism, the same as Marxists. Do we agree? Let's not use the word anarchy as it tends to imply chaos. Maybe I said they achieved that, if they did, it was not their intent. They were well organised in Spain, but the leaders refused to take power, on principle, when they could have.

I dunno the etymology, but yes, I think you are right.

why not on here?

 

Who is an authoritarian communist? What do you mean by that? The POUM were ex-Trotskyists, ie Trotskyists who's leaders went against Trotsky's advice. They both screwed up.

What do you mean by 'authoritarian communists', who do you include? Do you include Trotsky? If so, why not the POUM? The POUM were a sort of watered down Trotskyism, they kinda lost the plot a bit, see the article.

Hannah Sell:

"Despite being decried as ’Trotskyist’ by the Stalinists, the POUM was no such thing. If it had followed the programme put forward by Trotsky from afar, the outcome of the Spanish struggle would have been completely different. Under the impact of the revolution the POUM grew in membership very quickly - from 8,000 on the eve of the civil war it quadrupled its membership in a few months - and potentially could have grown far more. Tragically, however, rather than putting an independent class programme forward, it trailed behind the anarchist and social democratic parties - standing a little to the left - but not putting forward any clear alternative.



Trotsky, in his tremendous article, ’The Class, the Party, and the Leadership’, takes up those who argued that the working class in Spain did not take power because they were ’immature’.



"What does the ’immaturity’ of the proletariat signify in this case? Self-evidently only this, that despite the correct political line chosen by the masses they were unable to smash the coalition of Socialists, Stalinists, Anarchists, and the POUMists with the bourgeoisie."



"The workers’ line of march at all times cut at a certain angle to the line of the leadership. And at the most critical moments this angle became 180 degrees. The leadership then helped directly or indirectly to subdue the workers by armed force."

http://www.socialistpartyni.net/com...sary-defeat-snatched-from-the-jaws-of-victory

 

you should check your facts before you write stuff.


http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

the basis of crime would decrease...

"in Emma Goldman's words, gets the criminals it deserves"
"Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society"
"The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society"

capitalism does not stop crime....

"prisons [would] have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there"

there are other ways possible in a different society....

"Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others.

An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies."

in these respects, the socialist view of crime overlaps with the anarchists, which is not surprising since their end goals are the same - communism (a society with no state).

He is a liar or stupid.

 

Do you ever spout anything other than demagogic bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?
This is what your tripe sounds like to any intelligent person:

The following groups do associate with each other:
right-wingers
**********s
racists
bigots
nazi sympathizers
white supremacists
useful idiots
...because the have a common goal - to sow race hatred, intolerance and destroy civilized society.
And why? HATE.

 

or worse, a hindrance. Lenin's brother was executed for terrorism, and I guess Lenin learned a vital lesson. Trotsky spent years locked up with terrorist anarchists, and spent a lot of time arguing with them.

Later he said

"All Marxists in Russia began in the historic fight against terrorism"

They were pretty organised in Spain, but their leaders blew it.

Support this utter nonsense or retract.

 

By facts do you mean opinions made by other kook? No thanks. I'll leave those for people who don't have the intellectual capacity to think for themselves.

By what measure? Wishing it away?

It's a social and economic system. It's not suppose to stop crime.

This is why anarchist are very stupid. And if the socialist ideas coincide with the anarchist then they're stupid too. No one actually describes how crime is going to be eliminated. In their wrapped diluted sense of reality they simply believe crime will vanish.

Anarchist and Socialist fail to understand the moment anyone decides not to follow their unsustainable systems their entire economy fails.

 

I call authoritarian communists to the Marxist-leninists, Trotskyists,... And mainly in Spain to the people of the PCE and PSUC.

 

you were talking about what anarchists wanted, and the anarchist faq is a well known summary of the main strands. Clearly they have thought about crime. You implied they did not care.

read the article. It does not say wishing it away. Crime is caused mostly by capitalism, which would be abolished.

Most crime is caused by capitalism.

It is described in the link. You could read it quicker than typing out this. 90% of crime is caused by capitalism and that would go. The other 10% is caused by the way people are brought up by their parents, and that could be fixed. Authoritarian upbringing is linked to the bourgeois family structure anyway. Communists would famously 'abolish the family' of course, dunno if you have any idea what that means.

The bourgeois nuclear family was pushed onto the working class in Victorian England at the time the capitalists decided they didnt want women and children in their factories anymore. Along with this homophobia was pushed, and we all know about the strict Victorian moral values blah blah blah.

why?


google sustainable economy capitalism. Capitalism is far from sustainable. Even with the world as it is today, with only a small percentage living the life styles of advanced capitalist economies, the global economy is not sustainable. It takes the planet 18 months to recover from 1 year of human activity. For everyone to live like and American in a capitalist society as we know it, 5 planets would be needed.

Can capitalism make itself sustainable? In theory, doubtful, in practice, the chances are negligible. They have done almost nothing so far.

google 'sustainability' as well.

 

There is a massive difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism

 

No I implied that their thoughts are poorly thought out. As all anarchist/socialist theories are.

Crime is not a part of capitalism. The Rule of Law doesn't allow for it.

Dumbest thing ever said. There is no distinction between a "capitalist crime" and "socialist crime." A crime is a crime. There is nothing socialist or capitalist about it. Crime is not unique to any economy system.

All crime is caused by a person's upbringing. Crime is done because people have a different distinction between right and wrong. It has nothing to do with any economic system.

Who cares?

Why do you think? People are individuals not chess pieces you can move at your whim. They have their own own individual goals and needs. The moment someone decides not to be part of the collective the system fails. It's all over the moment someone decides to do for themselves.

Again with this ignorant exponential grow nonsense. There is a vast abundance of resources on Earth. Has long as economies are price coordinated and technology increases in efficiency, resources can last for generations. "Economics" is the study of how to use scarce resources more efficient. You actually need an understanding of it to know how to make resources last.

It has and has been doing so for 2 centuries making life better for the poorest countries in the world. The only reason people mess it up is because they try to reinvent the wheel through Central Government Planning. The further countries went left, the further they moved towards Marx, the worse their economics got.

Sustainability is a broard term and virtually meaningless the way you are using it.

 

Did you see the 99% stuff provided a few pages back by our dear Janpor on the other thread about the Wallstreet protests???

LOOK:

 

Actually, I think that Anonymous is just the Tea Party with balls.

 

That's an interesting take, but no. The Tea Party does not promote or condone committing crimes to make a point.
The Tea Party pointed believes in the processes provided in the Constitution to redress govt.

 

Most of these folks are relatively young. They are glorified computer geeks and comic book nerds. They have a lot of power but do not have the maturity to use it responsibly. So they create chaos with it out of boredom and anger. Spend some time on 4chan and you'll see what I mean.

 

And they'll look back on it with regret. Most of them anyway. The rest will be hard leftists, aka "progressives".

 

You're hijacking a term here. Anarchism by itself is not inherently communist. In fact, in its natural form, it is pure, uregulated capitalism. It is survival of the fittest. Although perhaps in a tribal sense, there is a mild element of communism to it (i.e. a wolf pack). But there is still a leader and some sense of a heirarchy.

Anarcho-communism is a manmade ideology based in utopian fantasy that ignores human nature. Which is why a social movement toward it is silly in theory and destructive in reality.

Nature is capitalist by design. As long as animals fight for dominance in the wild, so too will human beings in the social jungle. Just like political correctness in all of its various forms (race politics, gender politics, etc.), communism will always inevitably fail in the long run because the ego of man is no match for the sheer power of mother nature. You lefties understand this on some level which is why you decry abstinence from sex as unrealistic. And rightfully so. But then you choose to look the other way when this very same principle interferes with something you want to believe in.

Go back and study how man behaved before western style capitalism and see if you want to go back to that. Because that is what you will be left with. Uncivilized tribes warring for dominance and territory. In essence, it won't be much different from all of the things you currently hate about modern capitalism. All you will have accomplished is the destruction of the safety regulations that currently protect your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

 

What is human nature?
Nor philosophers nor doctors know but capitalists do

 

No, human nature is not greedy. Human nature is not like capitalism sells. Is all the contrary. If you act of a form or other, is mainly cultural and social. Not in nature. And every new discovery is appointing that the vision of the anarchists is more correct

And no, anarchism is collectivist. The anarchocapitalism is posterior. And that is an aberration, because don't follow the principle of the anarchism:

- Antiauthoritarism

Anarchism is horizontal and antiauthoritary. Anarchocapitalism is not neither. Antiauthoritary neither horizontal.

 

Animals know. Plants know. Your dog knows. Western humuan beings no longer remember.

 

Progressives are not exactly hard leftists.