ALERT: The Anonymous Group - Anarchist Criminals

Yea because it isnt society that gives us values and makes our nature.

 

Show me one anarchist state that has worked. Just one.

 

That magical island on the TV show 'Lost' seemed to have worked out okay. Even then it still wasn't a true Archaist system.

 

Celtic Ireland and the Icelandic Commonwealth. Both outlasted most governments, which all fail over time. The Vatican, a city/state, is the oldest form of government still in existence.

The early US also had several anarchist communities, mostly due to religious beliefs.

 

They are statists and socialists in America at the very least. Some are Marxists.
They are NOT old fashioned traditional dems.

 

You...really don't know what Anonymous is all about.

It's not a "group" or "organization."

You can't really define it's boundaries, or it's actions.

It's a hive mind, and an individual at the same time.

The FBI is investigating it. It's even claimed to have the "leaders" of anonymous.

This is utterly ridiculous. There are no leaders.

Anyone and anytime, anywhere in the world can be a part of anonymous. The web is the home base and there is no leader. There are no set goals for Anonymous as whole.

An individual or a group of individuals may work for toward the same goal. This is true, but there is no mass goal. Anyone can call themselves anonymous and work toward something.

So in this way, there is no chain of command, there are no leaders, there is no group in any fashion previously known.

Ideas are proposed, individuals and groups work toward these ideas based on their own personal reasons, opinions, or ideological beliefs.

All under the banner of anonymous.

To suggest that there is a vast network of communication, planning, or goals as ONE large entity is ridiculous.

 

Anonymous = decentralized cyber terrorists.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Quite the opposite. Capitalist are capitalists because they don't. It is the doctors and second-rate philosophers that claim they know.

 

I wish Anonymous would try to hack into the CIA so they can catch them.

That would be awesome.

 

a vague sweeping statement with no substance, as all your statements are.

capitalism = inequality
inequality -> crime

Why would there be crime if there was no such thing as money, if everyone was equal, everyone had everything they need, everyone had a good job? They world be virtually no crime. There would be no material basis for crime, no purpose, no reason, for most crime. There would be no theft, no mugging, no robbery, no fraud. Even things like domestic violence would obviously decrease to almost nothing. Crimes like rape would decrease because culture would be different. Rape is about power and so is capitalism, as money = power. Capitalism tends to reinforce male dominance even today, though things have improved since the time my granny knew the Pankhurst sisters.

Funny that when I had a girlfriend who was a criminologist, she quickly became a Marxist. Have you studied criminology?

You are presenting an idealist view here, and as such it is not rooted in any reality. The Marxist view is rooted in the material world - our environment determines our thinking to a large extent. If you are born in a ghetto, you are more likely to engage in certain crimes than if you are born in Beverley Hills. Fact. What is right and wrong anyway? The worst crimes are done by big business and governments, and they rarely get jailed for it.

You should, if you want to know what's what.

People will resist socialism, I realise that. It doesnt mean it's impossible. If the majority want it, they have it.

But the earths resources are not infinite, and many are already scarce. The population is growing, and demand is growing even quicker probably. If a Chinese peasant simply gets electricity, their eco-footprint goes through the roof. If a billion Chinese get a car, how do you think that will affect things?

Sure, capitalism might invent new stuff, but the fact is that it isnt doing much, and it is piecemeal and uncoordinated. We need to get rid of cars, not try to get a billion more on the frigging roads. That requires massive government planning.

This is just random phrasemongering. Lets examine it...

"has been doing so for 2 centuries making life better for the poorest countries in the world"
a dubious claim. Like when Britain de-industrialised India, or America overthrew democracy in Iran? Like when Britain invaded Iraq in 1914 and gassed villages there after the war? Like when America had nuclear weapons ready in Korea? Like when we went to Nigeria and took all the oil and polluted the place to oblivion?

You are so ignorant it's quite incredible. Let's google sustainability...

wiki

"Sustainability is the capacity to endure. For humans, sustainability is the long-term maintenance of well being, which has environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and encompasses the concept of stewardship, the responsible management of resource use."

"At the global scale scientific data now indicates that humans are living beyond the carrying capacity of planet Earth and that this cannot continue indefinitely. This scientific evidence comes from many sources..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

 

And yet I am rarely wrong.

So inequality leads to crime?

What about the Socialist crime ridden North Korea? Is that because of capitalism too?

What about the Soviet Union? Their price controls lead to criminal activity in the black market? Part of Capitalism too?

I don't even need to get started with China.

If anything, more crime has happened where the most "equality" was suppose to occur in Socialist states.

Crime is older than time itself and has been around longer than money. Crime has been happening without an official form of currency. Before there was an actual form of a commodity currency people bartered in a gift economy. People have been committing theft, mugging, and robbery. People have been stealing goods, property and resources.

You see, people don't have to steal money. As long as someone else has something of value, someone will always want it. The notion that crime will be eliminated without money is a pure fantasy.

Crime has been around for far longer than Capitalism also. Your logic, as usual, falls short.

I studied Finance and what does this have to do with me?

Most people become Marxist because they can't make heads or tails of economics. It's a trait you both share. Most Marxist are Marxist because they are ignorant about economics. Which is very ironic because Marx actually knew a little something about economics.

Capitalism is not an idealist view. People do crimes because they simply do crimes. Why they do it is irrelevant. Crimes have been done in all economic systems. Doesn't change the fact that crime has outlasted Capitalism and Socialism and that crime will be around regardless if both systems disappear.

And yet there have been more CEOs and business owners have gone to jail far more than any politician in the last 30 years.

Yes it pretty much does. The moment anyone decides to work for themselves and see the benefits and fruits of their own labor others are going to want to as well.

The earth has infinite amount of resources. Part of it has to do with Supply and Demand.

Assuming you know how through the law of Supply and Demand.

It won't. China is already one of the highest polluted places and the most environmentally unstable places in the world and yet they have the smallest "carbon footprint." You can take all the cars off the road and it won't change things by a degree.

Maybe it isn't doing much for you. Technology is rapidly increasing everyday. And people are constantly inventing alternatives for new products. Ever day someone is coming up with something new which does the same amount of stuff with less resources than before.

If you don't want a car, don't buy one. A car would greatly improve the lives of the Chinese people. I know when I traveled to China last month barely anyone went outside of their district. Barely anyone used their bikes to travel no more than a few miles. It literary took almost half a day for anyone to go anywhere.

Gee, maybe if they had automobiles that might change.

None of those had anything to do with making capitalism sustainable. In fact, none of those countries ever became capitalist countries with the exception of India and that was long after Britain invaded them. So nice job coming up with examples which are totally unrelated.

Retry? Y/N?

Economics is the responsible management of resources. I just finished telling you this last time and yet you felt the need to show me this worthless Wikipedia definition. One more time: Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

Irrelevant. Ignores prices and increased efficient.

When are you going to learn simply economic concepts. Even Karl Marx knew the law of Supply and Demand.

 

Ok, let's get serious. What do you mean by hard left? There are two strands on the far left, Marxist and anarchist.

Here is a Marxist party in America writing about Anonymous....

"IF JULIAN ASSANGE (a former hacker) is extradited to Sweden, followers of the cyberguerilla group Anonymous have indicated that they will attack UK government computers. Coordinated attacks of this nature are not new, but the defence of WikiLeaks has taken them onto a new level, attracting new participants. When WikiLeaks was denied services by corporations like Mastercard, Paypal, etc, Anonymous retaliated by launching Operation Payback and Operation Avenge Assange. They used DDoS to attack the computer systems of those corporations, also the websites of officials and politicians who had attacked WikiLeaks.

Tens of thousands of people have downloaded the software tool LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon) offered by Operation Payback (23,479 did so in the second week of December alone) to help these attacks. These protesters are all over the world and range from teenagers in their bedrooms to adults from all backgrounds. They can cause significant temporary disruption, bringing down target websites for a while, which can draw welcome attention to an issue.

But the success of this method of protest has been limited. Internet networks like Anonymous have little or no organisational structure, so there is no means for democratically debating what course of action to take and then everyone acting on it together. Instead, ideas are thrown into a pool of individual contributions and some of the most popular are acted on in a disorganised, chaotic way by those who choose to do so. With no elected, accountable leaders, it is almost impossible to make fast decisions about switching direction when necessary and utilising new campaigning opportunities.

Disunity is rife, as they have political aims ranging from right to left, and many see themselves as anti-political anarchists. A Guardian analysis of Anonymous (13 December 2010) said: "So unwieldy, reactive and vitriolic is the group that members often turn their weaponry on each other". The report quoted one hacker as saying: "It is political activism to an extent, but lots of the people just do it for a laugh".

Sometimes the use or public release of people’s personal information by hackers causes great distress and difficulty for the victims of such activity. Carrying out more far reaching internet protest campaigns than are done at present and ensuring they are progressive regarding the interests of the workers in the target companies and those of the wider working class and middle class, would require a democratic structure of discussion and debate, and the influence of socialist ideology.

Online forums and actions can play an important role in protest movements and struggles. But they need to be an adjunct to face-to-face discussions where people know who they are talking to, and to democratically organised mass protests in the ‘real’ world, including demonstrations, and strikes when necessary. "

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1518

 

Oh come on. Most of "anonymous" are just kids fooling around on 4chan. They are harmless. The ones who are legitimately threats are a vast minority among 4chan users. Most of them just create rage guy memes and play WOW a lot.

Don't be so paranoid.

 

yes it is. You are clueless. Where can I start? All the anarchist writers argued with Marxists about the best way to achieve communism.

Let's go to the Anarchist FAQ:
"While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details), there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism."

"Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. "

"Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism."
http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

I could go on. Let's try a Marxist view, from the MIA

more at link

And for all the historical writing on anarchism by anarchists and Marxists..

http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Marxism & Anarchism

Resources on the theory and practice of anarchism and the unity and conflict between Marxists and Anarchists over the past 150 years.



Sylvia Pankhurst, 'left communist'.

Nonsense, sheer, unadulterated, utter f&^%$ng nonsense.

Nonsense

nonsense

as opposed to what? God-made? Made by fairies?

no. It ignores the need to organise against counter-revolution.


Which is why a social movement toward it is silly in theory and destructive in reality.

This has to be the singularly most stupid thing ever posted on any internet forum.

stop it, you're cracking me up

What a load of bull. Firstly, I am well aware of regulations as I worked in QA for many years, and I have no intention of abolishing safety regulations. I cant imagine why you think communists would want to abolish them, or do you think I am an anarchist?

Tribes were actually more civilised than modern society in many ways. Look at the native American Indians. They were more civilised than the white man. But neither anarchism nor communism wants to go back.

 

in your dreams

CRIME AND INEQUALITY: CURRENT ISSUES IN RESEARCH AND PUBLIC DEBATE INTRODUCTION
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...sg=AFQjCNFO5ihcRT1rJbFfm_mC54lya_VDLQ&cad=rja

to say NK is socialist is incredibly retarded MissJ.

As for crime there, how do you know? The government does not release figures. According to this travel guide, violent crime is rare.

"The North Korean government does not release statistics on crime. Violent crime is rare, and street crime is uncommon in Pyongyang. Petty thefts have been reported, especially at the airport in Pyongyang.

Don't buy counterfeit and pirated goods, even if they are widely available. Not only are the bootlegs illegal in the United States, but you may also be breaking local law. "
http://travel.his.com/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_988.html#crime

No, and it wasnt part of socialism either. I didnt say capitaism is the only cause of crime, there was crime in feudal and slave societies too.

there are no socialist states.

yes, literally

You cant compare a primitive society before money to a socialist society in which there is no money because everything is free and in abundance. What would you steal? You could get virtually anything within reason for free. The definition of communism includes that all want has been abolished.

You studied finance? Well how come you know nothing of substance about it?

Yes, like Andrew Glyn, economic tutor at Oxford, who taught Ed Milliband

Karl Marx who wrote the 3 volume Capital? He did, yeah, very gracious of you to say.

You were presenting an idealist position. Do you know what idealism is? Look it up.

I doubt it.

Support this crazy statement

Literary? Shouldnt that be riterary?



Gee, maybe if they had automobiles that might change.[/quote]

How about public transport? If I want to go to the city centre I have two choices, 10 minutes on the Metro, or an hour in the car including finding a parking space. Which would you do?

rubbish. Economic is apologetics for capitalism, which doesnt know the meaning of the word responsible.



The private yacht Eclipse, cost $1.2 billion.

Explain what you are on about. Preferably in English. We already use more than is sustainable. Pressure from India and China etc will push that higher. You think high prices will save the planet, is that it? But we are already exceeding sustainability. How is that irrelevant?

 

I get the hive mentality and common goal.
You don't know what I know.
Thanks for the input tho-.

 

anarchy [ˈænəkɪ]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos

Anarchists are not FOR freedom, they are against any govt. That is not close to the same thing.


Anarchists could easily see globalism as the best path to global lawlessness and chaos.

The protesters are an ignorant mob. They are filled with differing rants and are completely naive and unaware of the benefits they enjoy. The most cohesive thing I can extract from their near mindless ranting is that they think bankers are getting more freebies than they are and they're threatened by that. An ignorant mob that feels threatened is dangerous.

 

You wrote that to MissJonelyn, and then you wrote this:

Ha ! Talk about vague.... and not even based in reality.
Get a job and pay your bills.

What planet are you living on? Planet kumbaya?
Get a clue: what you're talking about will never happen. Human nature is not capable of living without some - at least minimal structure. People are mean, greedy, and also kind and loving. They duality of man does not bend.

Capitalism is the best system for individual prosperity and the Constitution the best vehicle of freedom ever devised. All else is some form or totalitarianism.

You are. Live in the real world and deal with it. Get out of Europe and come to America.
Europe is hopeless. They've never been able to grasp the concept of individual liberty. It was feudalism and then socialism or Marxism. What a massive FAIL.

Your mind and personal ethic determines what you think. But in Europe you're boxed in by the same old mindset. If I were you, I'd get the hell outta there.

Marxists dwell in the democrat party hard left here in America. They will not be successful. Also the Democrat party has become outright socialist in their collective quest for votes and power.
Plus we have to deal with the stupid hippie types and looney anarchists at the Wall Street Protests. Like our hippie culture in the 1960's they're sell outs - they just don't know it yet. They love money as much as anyone. What the hell do you think they're protesting about? MONEY. The want those who have it to GIVE it to them.

I remember seeing one woman being interviewed on TV saying "We could all prosper if the rich would share." What an idiot. She wants free money.

Get a job. Live within your means. NO one's gonna GIVE you anything. Accept it.

 

ENVY. Is this what it's all about? YES.

 

1)What's wrong with socialists?
2)How are Democrats not like Traditional Dems?

 

A society where one individual can afford a $1.2 billion yacht while others cannot afford health care or a sufficient education is an unjust society.

 

Good luck trying to arrest tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

Wow, some people take their (*)(*)(*)(*) way too seriously if they actually consider Anonymous a threat to national security.

All people are each entitled to their own political beliefs.

Anarchists and top-down communists get along with each other about as well as oil and water.

Yeah, it can't be anything other than those freedom-hating anarchists... wait...

I'm pretty sure the folks trading their freedom for tyranny are the folks who support the corporate state and unfettered private business. There's nothing that oppresses people quite as much as private business will, given half a chance. What's more oppressive than a system that enforces compliance by shaping people's perspective so that they willingly serve the machine? That's true tyranny, when people are so cowed they can't even understand that they are being oppressed.

"American-style freedom" is an oxymoron, or maybe a joke in bad taste. "American-style freedom" is pretty much synonymous with a cruise missile, or lately with drones.

When has Anonymous actually attacked account holders with banks?

 

I think you're misunderstanding their objections. They're not opposed to free enterprise, they're opposed to the corporate state and its instruments. They're not proposing some sort of communist utopia where no one buys or sells anything.

 

Is that why you can't refute anything I say in your own words?

Like here? Well I guess this research paper has a point. There has always been inequality and crime long before Capitalism and Socialism. So maybe you might have something for once.

Well it ain't capitalist. And it doesn't have anything close to a market economic or mixed economic.

If it's not a socialist economy, it is pretty close to one.

Of course North Korea wouldn't have statistics on Crime. You can only gather statistics on criminal activity in a certain country if said country is willing to provide that information. Simply because they have no statistics on crime you have to assume that it's crime infested.

According to Cuba (Another socialist country), they have the best health care system and the lowest poverty rate in the world.

Yes it was. Unless you are going to blame the price controls and not socialism.

According to you and Marx-Lenin. According to Adam Smith and John Locke there are no Capitalist states.

Just because it's not Socialist the way you want it to be doesn't mean that it's not Socialist.

And yet people are so quick to blame crime on Capitalism. Why would people make silly correlations like that? Hmmm...

Yes you can and I told you what people stole: Goods, Resources, Property. Before people used commodity money (Gold, Silver) they bartered. In a Gift Economy people trade one good or service for another good or service. As long as someone have something which is perceived of value to them, someone else is going to want it. Whether or not they steal it is a another matter.

This is where Socialist have it wrong. To assume that everything would be "free" and "abundant" is a fallacy and a fantasy. Regardless of what practices, policies or institutions, there is simply not enough to go around to satisfy all everyone's desires to fullest. Unfulfilled needs are apparent in these circumstances, whether we have a capitalist, socialist, feudal.

Ha! That's funny.

What about him? The list of Marxist economist is dwarfed by the number of Kenyes and Austrian Economist. And this is not the list of economist living today, it's throughout history. Most Marxist don't take the time to understand economics.

You have to know how a system work to know how it's flawed. Marxist today just choose the latter.

I said people commit crimes because they don't have a distinction of right and wrong. And somehow that is idealist? Right...

The Berlin Wall wasn't exactly to keep people out, it was to keep people in. North Korea/South Korea is pretty much the most heavily guarded border in Asia keeping millions of people from fleeing to the South.

What is crazy about it? Yeah resources are scarce but scarce doesn't mean limited. It merely means not enough to satisfy everyone completely. Resources are unlimited. There is nothing crazy about it. I told you through supply and demand. Finite is a meaningless term. It's meaningless because as when goods increase in prices people started to self ration and less less of that particular resource. The higher prices creates incentive for producers to do one of three things:

1. Produce more of that particular good.
2. Come up with other alternatives for that particular resources.
3. Invent newer ways to use resources to do the same stuff with less resources.

So even if you think a resource is "finite", that doesn't tell you very much. As technology improves you discover that you'll be able to use less and less of the same resources to do the same amount of stuff.

Computers use to fill up an entire room and now you can fit an entire computer in your pocket because over time people discovered that you can develop microchips which can hold more and more information while become smaller and using less and less resources.

Whichever word you want to use. Pretty sure I meant to use a different word.

Since when would it take less time to transport using the Metro than it would using Car? You have to wait for a Train. Trains have to follow a particular schedule and trains have to make stops at all scheduled stops. Granted, China is a very big country but even the Metro doesn't take you everywhere you need to go. If people had a choice people would use what is more convenient. Limiting their choices isn't good.

You're over exaggerating the cost. That yacht cost 340 million Euros which is about $450 Million USD. It's still 6 times the amount of the average yacht but it's the World's Largest Luxury Yacht. What do you expect? And I would say that is money and resources put to good use. I can pretty much almost guarantee you that if the Federal Government decided to construct a yacht like that it would cost $1.2 Billion USD. And it probably wouldn't have been made as luxurious and it probably would have taken twice the amount of time to finish.

It's ridiculous and irrelevant because it ignores prices and increased efficiency. How many times to I have to keep explaining this?

If we came to the point of when we used far more than is sustainable, you would know with skyrocketing prices. And people don't wait for skyrocketing prices to self ration or come up with alternatives.

Another example of increased efficiency, in the early 1960s telephone use in America has been expanding rapidly. At the time the only way to carry the data over telephones was over cooper wire. As telephone began to explain to new parts in the United States the demand for cooper increased. As the demand for cooper began to rise, so did the price. The result of increasing prices often creates fear of the lack of future resources. People began to worry that there wouldn't be enough cooper to wire the entire country for telephone use.

Well thanks to prices and increased efficiency they managed to get around this problem through exploration and alternatives. As the price of cooper increased, cooper produced found new sources of cooper in places which were previously too expensive to explore. Also they developed substitutes like fiber-optic cables.

All prices are interrelated and all resources have different uses. As long as people are studying ways to use them in more efficient ways humans will never exceed sustainability.