Msg to all Capitalists and Rightists

PhilipMarlowe

Good post DeV.... nice one on the jobs btw....

DadaKopf

In response to DeVore's post:

The first problem of such movements is perception - that they're run by the SWP, Socialist Party and the Anarchists. This isn't true, go to any mass demonstration and you'll see a whole load of different groups but more than that, the marches are comprised of people who just go along of their own accord because they feel something has to be done. Of course, all anyone sees are those stupid SWP placards, they just give them out and people take them, I believe people should refuse them unless they are SWP's. The larger marches (Critical Mass, May Day [in recent years], Recclaim the Streets, CND and Drop the Debt) are also represented by groups like Globalise Resistence [neo-left] and by ATTAC, who in my opinion have their heads screwed on. It pi$$es me off seeing a load of speakers who haven't a clue what they're talking about but are quite proud to blurt out hackneyed phrases that sound good.

My basic point is this: if people actually choose to look beyond the perception of the marches and the whole movement in general, the reality is that for the most part, the marches are just collections of individuals who have this shared notion of wanting the world to simply be more fair and just. I think that's something we can all agree with - it resonates with practically everyone.

Secondly, assuming what you meant by "I am so sick of hearing the SWF and the SWP and the feckin Peoples Front Of Judia (dont EVEN go there people!) bang on like they have any desire except to some day be the top dog" is that you hate the hypocrisy of the SWPs, SPs and assorted Communists, anarchists and Trotskyists, that's fine. In many, many ways, they're wrong - they haven't really caught up on the years and years of political theory after the Russian revolution! But, nevertheless, you imply that Socialism or Communism is intended to somehow make human endeavour for success obsolete. Personally, I think that sensible opposers to the current strains of capitalism throughout the world simply want a redirection of this basic instinct of self-realisation, not an eradication of it. Nobody would agree with the suppression of the human imagination and that the right to be all that you can be should be denied - it's just that perhaps the field of play should shift, the goals and emphases should shift [RE: Alienation - Marx etc. were spot on here].

When you say: "Frankly, most of them have the deep down political staying power of Dana. As soon as they graduate or indeed discover that daddies beemer can pull chicks they'll drop their scruffy causes and take a cushy job", of course this happens. But don't you think it's also possible yourself, as an individual, to change the ways you live and, I suppose, the conditions under which you employ people? This isn't directed soecifically at you DeV, I'm sure you're a great employer!

Ultimately, legal reforms are necessary for things to improve. Who says it has to be forced through by a bunch of "loony" lefties? ATTAC is the chief proponent of the Tobin Tax and I think most people wouldn't oppose it - I mean, 0.001% of all business transactions going toward a fund to write off world debts? As if we'd miss 0.001p. But why hasn't be been enacted by anyone? The corporations, the employers, the politicians. It's happened before that when economic reforms have been introduced in Ireland, South America and so on, the employers went on strike, so to speak - held their countries and the world to ransom. When you consider how much wealth there is floating around this earth and how much could be used to make things better for everyone but isn't, don't you think that perhaps this is unfair? Abuses of power, ignorances of justice would begin to be dealt with. There's a lot to be said for generosity and philanthropy.

I firmly believe that people can even do the minimum to make things better. If only they'd bother. People can criticise the anti-capitalists and the marchers all they like but at least they'e doing something other than endlessly consuming like a flucking hampster in a spinning wheel.

DeVore

When you say: "Frankly, most of them have the deep down political staying power of Dana. As soon as they graduate or indeed discover that daddies beemer can pull chicks they'll drop their scruffy causes and take a cushy job", of course this happens. But don't you think it's also possible yourself, as an individual, to change the ways you live and, I suppose, the conditions under which you employ people? This isn't directed soecifically at you DeV, I'm sure you're a great employer!

Absolutely. I live like I post here. Civility, fairness and generally trying to get through my life without screwing people over.
And it IS possibly to do that and be an employer. As you point out there should be a limit on the ultimate amount of success and greed one person is allowed.

I'd clas myself as a socialist, most people wouldnt. Most socialist's definitely wouldnt.

Look, I honestly dont give Mankind more then a century anyway so its all fairly irrelevant.
If nothing matters, then all that matters is how you treat people right here, right now. That defines if you are a good person or a c*nt.

It may seem bleak but I doubt my nephews and nieces will die of natural causes. Humanity is f*cked and I really think that noones going to change that. You cant reason or protest or march against terrorists, you cant stop things escalating and everything is just creaking at the joints.

Face it people. we're f*cked. lets party.

DeV.

Gerry

Socialism is fair enough as a theory, but does anyone actually reckon a government with purely socialist policies could stay in power? Apart from the lack of morally scrupulous people to run said government, is the general population ready to give up their addiction to consumerism? I don't think so. I think the only alternative is a compromise between socialism and capitalism which does not exist on the normal political scale of right and left. A little from column A, a little from column B. A government which would have the respect of the people would need to be purely transparent, and possibly very decentralised, almost to the point of a federation, however without a dedication to profiteering.

Ordinary left,right or centre governments cannot have this, because no matter what their policies/constitutions are, they are a central ruling elite, vulnerable to corruption, and to the suspicion and cynicism of the general public. If people can actually make a difference, they will quickly realise this and they will change. What would it take for this to happen? Perhaps the public will eventually become dissatisfied, and momentum will build towards an anarchic revolution, I dunno.

The SWP (for example) do not claim the public are apathetic, rather that they are not informed. I reckon it is simply that most ordinary people do not believe that the SWP (or whoever) would provide them with a better solution, and others are resigned to their unsatisfying lives anyway, and so would prefer to stick with what they know.

Enough of my waffle now, I just felt I had to add my tuppence.

WhiteWashMan

and of course, if the public was better informed t the benefits fo a more socialist culture, they will be queueing in the steets to give away their hard earned money.
coz no-one ever complains about paying out tax do they?

its all very nice an fanciful but can anyone actually give me a country where communism or socialism has really worked?
just one?
the 3 main ones i can think of would be russia, china and cuba.
and ummmm, lets see if theres poverty in any of those?
yes.
so socialism means you get to live in poverty with the rest of the poeple. at least in a free trade state only half the people are below the poverty line.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey

Respectfully, I know that not all of you are guilty of making generalizations. My point was more Rhetorical -- answering a flawed question with the same form of flaw in order to expose the flaw.

I.e., I made the generalizations deliberately, in response to like generalizations. There is both irony and (I thought) a bit of humour in this approach.
[/B]

Fair enough. I missed the humour - guess I'm just not a funny guy

The reason it got my goat is simple. Most anti-capitalists point out all the massive flaws in the current "top-dog" of systems, and go for ridiculous idealistic principles without considering the fact that the cause of the flaws in capitalism is not the system itself, but rather those who choose to abuse it.

This, to me, strikes a chord with the way you posed the question - questioning (disagreeing with / arguing against) a flawed argument (which it is) with an equally flawed argument.

I find it interesting that you complain about my generalization while letting the original generalization go unanswered (at least at first.)

I think my reasoning above explains why I didnt bother answering it originally...which I will now.

I am a firm believer in capitalism. Why? Because in my (admittedly limited) exposure to other systems, they all seem to harp on about ideals which are realistically unworkable.

As with deVore, I believe you can be a capitalist without necessarily having to be exploitative. The two are not synonymous, and if they are, then I would like to change my stance to believing in a system which is "non-exploitative capitalism", whatever it should be properly called.

What I believe is the current problem is that we have too close a tie between corporate and government, to the extent that governments will not police their corporates sufficiently, allowing excessive exploitation.

Simple case in point....Microsoft are still in court for anti-trust behaviour, because the law believes they are ultimately hurting the consumer (which is what an abuse of monopoly is about at heart). On the other hand, hurting the producer (exploiting your workers) seems perfectly acceptable - even more so when those exploited are in a foreign nation.

I also believe you will never find the likes of WalMart or Starbucks taken up for their anti-competitive practices, despite the fact that their entire business model is based around using their might to wipe out the competition through over-saturation of an area, which they then follow up by closing some of their own stores once dominance has been reached.

Basically put, capitalism is not the problem, its the policing of it. Unfortunately, introducing this policing at any credible rate would be so destructive to the work practices of so many companies, it would probably destroy the world economy. Now, while the idealists may promote this as a good thing, the simple fact is that the common man en masse will never agree to a change which may ultimately benefit his kids or grandkids, but which will reduce his life to a poverty-stricken one.

We need change, and change must come sooner or later. It will either be slow and slightly painful, or fast and bloody, but at the end of it, I think you will still find capitalism remaining as top-dog, although hopefully in a more personable guise.

jc

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

As with deVore, I believe you can be a capitalist without necessarily having to be exploitative. The two are not synonymous, and if they are, then I would like to change my stance to believing in a system which is "non-exploitative capitalism", whatever it should be properly called.

I guess my response would be that it is often difficult to tell when low wages become "exploitation". Other than that I dont disagree.

Simple case in point....Microsoft are still in court for anti-trust behaviour, because the law believes they are ultimately hurting the consumer (which is what an abuse of monopoly is about at heart). On the other hand, hurting the producer (exploiting your workers) seems perfectly acceptable - even more so when those exploited are in a foreign nation.

Well, anti-trust and labour law are two different areas of law with different goals. Anti-Trust is narrowly focused on consumer protection.

We do have labour laws, but the more you muck with labor laws, the more potential havok one can create on the market. I certainly dont like the fact that children in 3rd world countries may get a dollar a day for hard work, but the reality is that without that job, there'd be nothing to replace it. Force the company to pay more and the job may go away. I dont have a solution.

I also believe you will never find the likes of WalMart or Starbucks taken up for their anti-competitive practices, despite the fact that their entire business model is based around using their might to wipe out the competition through over-saturation of an area, which they then follow up by closing some of their own stores once dominance has been reached.

FYI -- it is not illegal to be a monopolist or very competitive. Anti-trust is about abusing one's market power to the detriment of CONSUMERS, not competitors.

Basically put, capitalism is not the problem, its the policing of it....

Yep, yep and yep

Von

The first problem of such movements is perception - that they're run by the SWP, Socialist Party and the Anarchists.

A eyewitness report on the protest last year in Prague illustrates this:

The Yellow Bloc was organised by, and principally for, Ya Basta and supporters of Ya Basta. A tightly organised movement, Ya Basta acts as something like a huge affinity group, taking responsibility for an aspect of the events they attend. In the case of S26, it had been arranged (openly and publicly) well in advance that Ya Basta were to attempt to take the bridge leading directly to the Conference Centre. Operating under certain policies (ie, no missile throwing), they welcome supporters and media, on the understanding that it's Ya Basta who co-ordinate the day. As it's Ya Basta activists who are on the front line, this seems to me to be reasonable and to be respected. Anyone seriously disagreeing with their choice of manoeuvres on the day was free to leave for one of the other Blocs.
It was with disgust, then, that I saw members of Trotskyite groups behind Ya Basta physically pushing unaffiliated people forward at random, snarling at them to go to the front line. The people who they were picking on were not dressed for a riot situation and clearly did not wish to move forward, nor was this the desire of Ya Basta at that time. Members of the affinity group that I was with proceeded to explain that what Ya Basta wanted was space between the front line and the lines behind it to allow room for retreat in case of CS gas attack. All the Trots seemed to care about was shoving people forward, causing a real crush at one stage. They cared nothing for the danger they were putting people in and it was telling that for all their cries of "Move forward", all of them remained at the back. This forced Ya Basta to form and extra line behind the front line to stop people being unwittingly pushed forward into the ranks of those doing the fighting with the Police. The Trots backed off and disappeared when we as an affinity group, and others, told them to clear off.
As organisations, these groups tend to jump on the bandwagon of popular movements and attempt to manipulate them to their own ends. Notice the way their few members bring along hundreds of placards with a slogan and their party's name on them. They hand these out to people who have no connection to their party to give the impression that they are numerically strong.

Ya Basta and Tute Bianche are two of the most popular organizations within the movement. Tute Bianche in particular reject all previous outdated ideologies which they say merely alienate people who are interested in local social and global issues but who also do not wish to be affiliated to communists, anarchists, SWP etc. They are anarchic in the sense that they run self sufficient social centres and clubs throughout Italy and rather than have a “leader” or any form of hierarchy, they make decisions on the basis of consensus. They pioneered the use of defensive clothing such as padded suits, shields, helmets and gasmasks to deal with police batons and tear gas so they’re capable of breaking police lines without incurring serious injury or resorting to violence of their own. They try to maintain control over their demonstrations and will disarm anyone who attempts to subvert them either deliberately (police infiltrators) or not.

tools

its all very nice an fanciful but can anyone actually give me a country where communism or socialism has really worked?

Two or three out of fifteen countries in Europe have ostensibly socialist governments. Sweden's socialist policies haven't done it much harm except if you like booze.
Read up on the Spanish Civil War and see how anarchism actually worked on a large scale, even during war.

Keeks

Socialism's crisis today is a crisis in the meaning of socialism. For the first time in the history of the world, very likely a majority of its people label themselves "socialist" in one sense or another; but there has never been a time when the label was less informative. The nearest thing to a common content of the various "socialisms" is a negative: anti-capitalism. On the positive side, the range of conflicting and incompatible ideas that call themselves socialist is wider than the spread of ideas within the bourgeois world.

This is a quote from a Hal Drapers article on the Two Souls of Socialism. ppl should really read it b4 labeling themselves or others.

ppl should ask themselves a few questions about what theu know about politics and its history. Anybody who has ever read the Communist Manifesto will know that it is not the same as what ppl know as Communism today.

Do ppl actually know what a capitalist/socailist/fascist/communist or are ppl just taking their own interpetations of someone else ideals.

Do ppl know there are more that one form of communism (Marist,Leninist,Stalinist), Capitalism, Socialism, etc. The way some ppl are taking, you have to be on one side. Why take sides. It doesn't solve problems. Its like voting for FF becaue your family did/you always did not because you believe they are right/gonna do the job right etc.

JustHalf

Hopefully no-one is going to suggest some sort of massively decentralised government where there is no real cohesion between them.

tools

Hopefully no-one is going to suggest some sort of massively decentralised government where there is no real cohesion between them.

Again, read up on the Spanish Civil War.
The concept of anarchism which rejects all established authority is hard for us to comprehend since from birth we have been told we must submit to and respect bankrupt and medieval authorities like the church etc. Positive examples of anarchy are everywhere from punk rock to the work of Chris Morris.

There were historical reasons why anarchy had popular support and success in Spain but in general (taken from a Noam Chomsky essay) anarchism is not a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways. For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown.2
One might ask what value there is in studying a "definite trend in the historic development of mankind" that does not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to -- rather than alleviate -- material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that "human nature" or "the demands of efficiency" or "the complexity of modern life" requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule.

Keeks

Originally posted by Keeks


This is a quote from a Hal Drapers article on the Two Souls of Socialism. ppl should really read it b4 labeling themselves or others.

Forgot to post the link to the article. You can find it here.

Moriarty

Originally posted by tools

The concept of anarchism which rejects all established authority is hard for us to comprehend since from birth we have been told we must submit to and respect bankrupt and medieval authorities like the church etc. Positive examples of anarchy are everywhere from punk rock to the work of Chris Morris.

It is not hard to comprehend. With the complete state of anarchy that you seem to want - IE :

an·ar·chy (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

This is basically the complete destruction of civilisation as we know it. It sends us back to the days that we lived in caves and smashed each others heads in over a spare piece of meat.

I neither submit to, nor have much respect for, the church in general. This does not mean, however, that i disrespect those that care to practice religion. Its not for me, but i can understand why people do practice.

As for your apparent good examples... Punk rock, and the 'artists' into this form of music, are certainly not the best example of people to live your life around. But hey. Each to their own.

Keeks

Originally posted by tools

Read up on the Spanish Civil War and see how anarchism actually worked on a large scale, even during war.

How did anarchy work during the Spanish Civil War and how did it progress afterwards?

DadaKopf

This is basically the complete destruction of civilisation as we know it. It sends us back to the days that we lived in caves and smashed each others heads in over a spare piece of meat.

Yeah, as opposed to Libertarianism - free market economics and ultra-minimal state interference and laws. This is also a form of anarchism but few capitalist supporters support that; even Thatcher wanted pretty draconian laws to ensure a free-market economy.

There are different trends of anarchism and that dictionary definition is fairly misleading - pejorative to day the least. I mean, you got Anarcho-Syndicalism [consensus based proletariat run ogranisation].

You've got vulgar utilitarianism too, that public morals and laws have to be arranged so that they maximise pleasure. Despite the fact that it's been the model of most modern democracies in the last 15 years, it has successfully swung some countries from the extremes of totalitarianism to anarchism. But no-one criticises this 'liberal' philosophy. Just like Pakistan no longer being a 'Rogue State' anymore, eh?

tools

It is not hard to comprehend. With the complete state of anarchy that you seem to want - IE :
an·ar·chy (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Dunno what children’s dictionary you got that from but it’s nonsense and do not presume I am an anarchist just because I am interested in it as a socio-political theory and also from a historical point of view.

How did anarchy work during the Spanish Civil War and how did it progress afterwards?

Obviously there’s much more detail than this but here’s a few points about how things worked:
In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political partie, the idea of libertarian communism/anarchism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

The regions where collectivisation was most prominent were Catalonia and Aragon, where about 70 per cent of the workforce was involved. The total for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises as well as services such as water, gas and electricity.
In general, the industrial collectives were organised from the bottom-up, with policy in the hands of workers' assemblies who elected the administration required, including workplace committees and managers. However, power rested the at base of the collective, with all important decisions being taken by the general assemblies of the workers.
The anarchist federations were created at congresses to which the collectives in an area sent delegates. These congresses agreed a series of general rules about how the federation would operate and what commitments the affiliated collectives would have to each other. The congress elected an administration council, which took responsibility for implementing agreed policy.
These federations had many tasks. They ensured the distribution of surplus produce to the front line and to the cities, cutting out middlemen and ensuring the end of exploitation. They also arranged for exchanges between collectives to take place. In addition, the federations allowed the individual collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the infrastructure of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on) and invest in means of production which no one collective could afford.
In this way individual collectives pooled their resources, increased and improved the means of production they had access to as well as improving the social infrastructure of their regions. All this, combined with an increase of consumption at the point of production and the feeding of militia men and women fighting the fascists at the front.

Defeat
George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is a good reference point for more information. He fought with the POUM (Marxist) militia. The anarchists (CNT/FAI) were defeated because of the eventual superiority of the Fascist forces who were heavily aided by the Nazis and Italy and also because of backstabbing from their communist allies who were supported by Stalin. The best military equipment which came from Russia was not made widely available to the anarchist militias. Orwell, complaining that 15 year old boys were being sent to the front with 40 year old rifles while well fed and well equipped communist units were held at the rear, said the Stalinists were more afraid of the revolution than they were of the fascists. France and Britain would not intervene or help support the Republican anti-fascist forces primarily because they feared an anarchist/socialist victory would spell trouble at home.

Since then
Anarchism along with Dadaism and Surrealism, influenced the Situationist movement of the 1960’s. Guy Debord in “The Society of the Spectacle” and Raoul Vaneigem in “The Revolution of Everyday Life” presented the most elaborate expositions of Situationist theory which had a widespread influence in France during the 1968 student/workers rebellion. Members of the Situationist International co-operated with the “enrages” from Nanterre University in the Occupations Committee of the Sorbonne, an assembly held in permanent session. On 17 May, the Committee sent the following telegram to the Communist Party of the USSR:

SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS' COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WILL NOT BE HAPPY UNTIL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE OF THE KRONSTADT SAILORS AND OF THE MAKHNOVSCHINA AGAINST TROTSKY AND LENIN STOP LONG LIVE THE 1956 COUNCILIST INSURRECTION OF BUDAPEST STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP

In their analysis, the Situationists argued that capitalism had turned all relationships transactional, and that life had been reduced to a "spectacle". The spectacle is the key concept of their theory. What they added to Marx was the recognition that in order to ensure continued economic growth, capitalism has created "pseudo-needs" to increase consumption. Instead of saying that consciousness was determined at the point of production, they said it occurred at the point of consumption. Modern capitalist society is a consumer society, a society of "spectacular" commodity consumption. Having long been treated with the utmost contempt as a producer, the worker is now lavishly courted and seduced as a consumer. If they thought consumerism was out of control in 1968, what would they make of it now?

JustHalf

I hope you're not promoting violence, tools.

bonkey

Originally posted by tools
Having long been treated with the utmost contempt as a producer, the worker is now lavishly courted and seduced as a consumer.

Why is this a bad thing?

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by tools

Dunno what children’s dictionary you got that from but it’s nonsense and do not presume I am an anarchist just because I am interested in it as a socio-political theory and also from a historical point of view.

www.dictionary.com, hardly childish, but nice quick access. Its not nonsense either, its what the word means. But hey.. who am i to step in the way of you...

Keeks

an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Anarchism is the belief that no government is just and that no government is therefore exactly what we ought to strive for.

I think they are good defintiions of anarchism. If they aren't then someone else can enlighten me.

In general, the industrial collectives were organised from the bottom-up, with policy in the hands of workers' assemblies who elected the administration required, including workplace committees and managers. However, power rested the at base of the collective, with all important decisions being taken by the general assemblies of the workers.

To me this sounds like a form a "government". What it shows is Democracy at work or even Socilism-Form-Below. It doesn't show show anarchy.

anarchy works in small groups and is ineffetive when dealing with large populations. If we were to go back to a time of the Celtic era when Clans rule Ireland then ararchy would ad did work for small family like structures. To progress in todays envoiroment we need some form of Socialism, such as Socialism from Below or Democracy.

Digi_Tilmitt

Wouldn't no goverment in a Anarchist society end up with a couple of drug barons countroling the country. Maybe I'm a bit confuzed.............................

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Moriarty


www.dictionary.com, hardly childish, but nice quick access. Its not nonsense either, its what the word means. But hey.. who am i to step in the way of you...

That is an American dictionary with no real solid academic back-up.
Anyway Dictionaries don't define reality.
Dictionaries are like Communisim. Good in theory but in practice they never work... hehe

Aside from that. Anarchism I belief is a viable method to achieve the aims that we are fighting for: The end of the Neo-Liberial Capitalists agenda... Fight them with everything we got. Words, Protest, Anarchy, Direct action and ideas....

tools

"Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." - Oscar Wilde

JustHalf

So let's all go against what we are told to do and then we will make progress!

tHE vAGGABOND

my cats breath smells of dog food

Keeks

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Aside from that. Anarchism I belief is a viable method to achieve the aims that we are fighting for: The end of the Neo-Liberial Capitalists agenda... Fight them with everything we got. Words, Protest, Anarchy, Direct action and ideas....

What wouls u put in place of a Neo-Liberial Capitalist society?