Anarchists Wanted to Attack NATO, Republican Convention: Feds

[Blalron]

@steronz

Anarchy should be on the extreme right of the political spectrum, so I don’t know where you’d get “militant liberal.” You must be thinking of communist activists like Che Guevara.

A true, thoughtful anarchist would tend to target liberals, assuming they bought into the “Democrats are the party of big-government” theory. On the other hand, a thoughtful anarchist might care more about the Patriot Act and other Big Brother type iniatives that tend to originate from the right.

Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a thoughful anarchist. Instead, it’s just a bunch of morons lashing out at whatever they decide is “the man.” Looking for a pattern amidst the rubbish is a waste of time.

Are you saying Michael Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and Peter Kropotkin weren’t thoughtful people?

Your post is so filled with ignorance, I hardly know where to begin. Suffice it to say, you need to educate yourself a little bit more about Anarchism. I strongly recommend An Anarchist FAQ (an approximately 700 page document which explains Anarchist philosophy in great sophistication and detail, in my not so humble opinion).

[BrainGlutton]

@Czarcasm

When did NATO become a wing of the Republican Party?

About the same time America’s two main political parties became ideologically homogeneous ones – late '70s, early '80s.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Bets the charges are all dropped within 12 months?

After the Election?

[BrainGlutton]

Relevant article from International Socialist Review.

[Northern_Piper]

"Anarchists Wanted to Attack NATO, Republican Convention: Feds"

How do you apply? what’s the salary range? what are the bennies?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@John_Mace

We had a thread recently where our own self described anarchist, Mr. Dibble, explained his philosophy. And he’d be easily classified as a leftist around here, even though he does’t really fit the simplistic, “no government” description of an anarchist.

MrDibble’s also an absolute pacifist-I’d personally classify him with Leo Tolstoy actually.

@steronz

Anarchy should be on the extreme right of the political spectrum, so I don’t know where you’d get “militant liberal.” You must be thinking of communist activists like Che Guevara.

That depends on the type on anarchist. Anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard are definitely closer to the Republicans (but barely) however most other anarchists are unlike libertarians against things like property and “imperialism”. Look at Leon Czolgosz or the Haymarket Riot.

[MrDibble]

@steronz

Anarchy should be on the extreme right of the political spectrum

Just no.

A true, thoughtful anarchist would tend to target liberals, assuming they bought into the “Democrats are the party of big-government” theory. On the other hand, a thoughtful anarchist might care more about the Patriot Act and other Big Brother type iniatives that tend to originate from the right.

Thoughtful anarchists don’t “target” anybody because of their political wing. We target everyone pretty much equally - and that includes most other anarchists

Or more seriously, anarchism is the struggle against social class and hierarchy - while most liberals are for so-called “big government”, generally they are easier to get along with for anarchists because they tend to be on the “right side” of issues like class and other social inequalities.

Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a thoughful anarchist.

:rolleyes:

Instead, it’s just a bunch of morons lashing out at whatever they decide is “the man.”

Double :rolleyes:
As to the anarchists in question:
As far as I can tell, these idiots were only planning on conducting structure hits, which I can get behind, if you have got to do something violent. But still idiots.

[gamerunknown]

MrDibble, at the risk of derailing the thread, what do you think of the pro-Situ anarchist movement? A lecturer at my university was a proponent of it, but he died before I started my course (sadly, he seemed to be infatuated with Nietzsche, himself a vicious opponent of Socialism).

Perhaps you could respond in Elections or General Questions.

[dngnb8]

@gamerunknown

MrDibble, at the risk of derailing the thread, what do you think of the pro-Situ anarchist movement? A lecturer at my university was a proponent of it, but he died before I started my course (sadly, he seemed to be infatuated with Nietzsche, himself a vicious opponent of Socialism).

Perhaps you could respond in Elections or General Questions.

I dont have an issue with a derailment (speaking as the OP). I got my answer early on.

[MrDibble]

@gamerunknown

MrDibble, at the risk of derailing the thread, what do you think of the pro-Situ anarchist movement? A lecturer at my university was a proponent of it, but he died before I started my course (sadly, he seemed to be infatuated with Nietzsche, himself a vicious opponent of Socialism).

There’s nothing wrong with Nietzsche, I like him myself. He could be wrong about some things, but his central thesis I don’t have a problem with.

As for the pro-Situ thing, personally I think
a) they don’t really grok what Situationism was really about, they over-intellectualize it and try too much to force it to fit an anarchist mould when it really wasn’t an anarchist movement.
b) they’re too post-Leftist for my tastes, again for overly-intellectual reasons. Again, that’s too simple a statement, but I mean that I see divorcing anarchism from its leftist roots is personally a mistake. By all means distance yourself from Marxism or any particular ideology, but replacing that with such wank as anarchoprimitivism and rejection of morality is never going to overcome capitalism. There’s a lot to like in post-Left anarchist thought, but I think overall rejection of roots is a bit hasty.

[Nametag]

@MrDibble

There’s nothing wrong with Nietzsche, I like him myself. He could be wrong about some things, but his central thesis I don’t have a problem with.

As for the pro-Situ thing, personally I think
a) they don’t really grok what Situationism was really about, they over-intellectualize it and try too much to force it to fit an anarchist mould when it really wasn’t an anarchist movement.
b) they’re too post-Leftist for my tastes, again for overly-intellectual reasons. Again, that’s too simple a statement, but I mean that I see divorcing anarchism from its leftist roots is personally a mistake. By all means distance yourself from Marxism or any particular ideology, but replacing that with such wank as anarchoprimitivism and rejection of morality is never going to overcome capitalism. There’s a lot to like in post-Left anarchist thought, but I think overall rejection of roots is a bit hasty.

Heh. I wasn’t familiar with Situationism, so I checked Wikipedia, and found this this quote from Guy Debord:

The only people who will be excluded from this debate are… those who in the name of some sub-anarchist spontaneism proclaim their opposition to any form of organization, and who only reproduce the defects and confusion of the old movement — mystics of nonorganization, workers discouraged by having been mixed up with Trotskyist sects too long, students imprisoned in their impoverishment who are incapable of escaping from bolshevik organizational schemas. The situationists are obviously partisans of organization — the existence of the situationist organization testifies to that. Those who announce their agreement with our theses while crediting the SI with a vague spontaneism simply don’t know how to read.

This, of course, doesn’t reject anarchism, just some of its more idiotic variants, but I like the snark. Situationism itself, on the other hand, just seems kind of ridiculous.