Advertisement
by Kowani » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:55 am
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:32 am
Torrocca wrote:Aellex wrote:It seems you haven't studied your own ideology's history because random assassination and bomb throwing are the two corner stones upon which it was built.
You do realize I'm an internationalist revolutionary, right, and not a, "oh yeah totally doing random acts of terrorism is a legit form of Anarchism that'll achieve an Anarchist society lololol eggs dee xD!!1!"-ist, right?
by Frievolk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:44 am
Aellex wrote:Torrocca wrote:
You do realize I'm an internationalist revolutionary, right, and not a, "oh yeah totally doing random acts of terrorism is a legit form of Anarchism that'll achieve an Anarchist society lololol eggs dee xD!!1!"-ist, right?
Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:14 am
Frievolk wrote:Aellex wrote:Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.
I mean a great deal of the bad red is due to Saboteur and Provocateur agents, seeing as the majority of pre-late 19th century Anarchist history is more a matter of pacifist theory than active "propaganda of the deed".
by Frievolk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:38 am
Aellex wrote:Frievolk wrote:I mean a great deal of the bad red is due to Saboteur and Provocateur agents, seeing as the majority of pre-late 19th century Anarchist history is more a matter of pacifist theory than active "propaganda of the deed".
I disagree, Anarchists have been going at assassination since their earliest days and have been very proactive at it too. From the attempted murder of Napoléon III to the successful one of the president of the republic Carno passing by the bombing of the parliament all of that in France alone, Anarchy is the political ideology that embraced the first terrorism and used it to its fullest extent.
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:50 am
Frievolk wrote:Aellex wrote:I disagree, Anarchists have been going at assassination since their earliest days and have been very proactive at it too. From the attempted murder of Napoléon III to the successful one of the president of the republic Carno passing by the bombing of the parliament all of that in France alone, Anarchy is the political ideology that embraced the first terrorism and used it to its fullest extent.
All of which belongs to the latter half of the 19th century, while Anarchism, as a branch of enlightenment thought, already existed in early 18th century. Then again, if acts of assassination and mayhem were any reason to denounce an ideology, we would have very few post-18th century ideologies left for debate.
by Frievolk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:54 am
Aellex wrote:Frievolk wrote:All of which belongs to the latter half of the 19th century, while Anarchism, as a branch of enlightenment thought, already existed in early 18th century. Then again, if acts of assassination and mayhem were any reason to denounce an ideology, we would have very few post-18th century ideologies left for debate.
It didn't tho. The commonly accepted date for the "creation" of Anarchism as a coherent ideology is 1840 and bomb throwers were already perpetrating their campaigns less than a decade later. The only people who were as quick to start using violence for their political movements were fascists and even them have the "excuse" of their nations being in state of quasi-civil war and intense internal turmoil, one that the anars don't have.
And no. No ideology apart from fascism and communism maybe has the use of violence and terrorism so tied to itself. You're comparing apples and oranges.
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:03 am
Frievolk wrote:Aellex wrote:It didn't tho. The commonly accepted date for the "creation" of Anarchism as a coherent ideology is 1840 and bomb throwers were already perpetrating their campaigns less than a decade later. The only people who were as quick to start using violence for their political movements were fascists and even them have the "excuse" of their nations being in state of quasi-civil war and intense internal turmoil, one that the anars don't have.
And no. No ideology apart from fascism and communism maybe has the use of violence and terrorism so tied to itself. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Ignoring the precursor ideologies (i.e. the stuff from 1500s, before that, etc.), Anarchism found its name by Godwin in late 1700s. My estimate of "it started in early 1700s" was wrong -I mistook it for something else- but it was already around in 1790s if Godwin put a "name" on it. In France too, nonetheless. Furthermore, I don't claim to understand the point of insurrectionist anarchism. I don't adhere to it, nor do I speak for it; but to claim "Anarchism, communism, and fascism are the only states to start using violence for their political movements" is a bit dishonest imo, especially since various enlightenment-oriented schools of thought -including liberalism and nationalism- were already agitating for revolution all over the world as early as 1770s.
by Frievolk » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:05 am
Aellex wrote:But it took its political sense only with Proudhon who theorized it in the mid 19th century.
As for agitating insurrection or revolution, it is wholly different from committing random acts of terrors targeting civilians for no other goal than ideological propaganda which is something that was indeed limited almost entirely to the three ideology I mentioned.
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Aellex » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:12 am
Frievolk wrote:Aellex wrote:But it took its political sense only with Proudhon who theorized it in the mid 19th century.
As for agitating insurrection or revolution, it is wholly different from committing random acts of terrors targeting civilians for no other goal than ideological propaganda which is something that was indeed limited almost entirely to the three ideology I mentioned.
Proudhon didn't "theorize" it. He wasn't even the only important anarchist theorist of his era. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this regard.
by Grenartia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:10 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Torrocca wrote:
Anarchism can still have a justice system for dealing with shit like murder or rape and the like without developing a state.
It'd, of course, be at it's most efficient with multiple communities forming confederations and agreeing upon standardized systems of rules and ways to carry out justice. That'd even allow for impartial mediators from other communities to mediate heinous cases that they're not personally attached to.
See, it's not so much about destroying the justice system as it is reimagining it in a way that fits within the Anarchist worldview of eroding away unjust institutions and establishing ones that the people themselves agree on as a whole, that are actually accountable to the people to ensure they don't carry out misdeeds.
You're pretty much making small states at that point tbh
If I'm not mistaken, defendants aren't usually tossed straight into prisons without a trial first.
Northern Davincia wrote:Torrocca wrote:
... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.
Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.
A juror can't simply opt-out once they've been selected, short of an emergency. Besides, you'd have a hard time finding suitable jurors without mandatory summons.
by Salus Maior » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:00 pm
Torrocca wrote:Northern Davincia wrote:>elected judges
Embrace kritarchy.
... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.Also voluntary juries is a horrible idea.
Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.
by Proctopeo » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:10 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Torrocca wrote:
... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.
Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.
THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING JUDGES?
If they literally have no power to sentence anything, why have them?
by Autarkheia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:10 pm
Same. Ancoms are overly idealistic, and ancaps are kind of nuts, but at least they're not openly stanning for mass-murdering dictatorships. (Except the helicopter memers, of course.)Grenartia wrote:This is pretty much my biggest problem with anarchism, and why I'm not an anarchist, because states are so necessary that their existence is inescapable, and their non-existence is undesirable. Though, as I've said before, most of the time, I'll gladly side with the anarchist left before I ever side with the anarchist right, and especially before I'd side with the tankies and fascists.
Don't say stuff like this, it sounds smug.Frievolk wrote:Er, no.
Let me correct myself: At the time he may have been more right, because there was a wider class divide and the working class were poorer and had lower standards of living than today. A major flaw is that he focused on the industrial working class when most of the world was still agrarian, which is why the Marxists that came after (especially Maoists) turned it into a "workers and peasants!" thing and thought they could leapfrog from a semi-feudal society to an industrialized socialist one. Which of course had uh, mixed results.He was objectively wrong, because he pinned every single form of upper class into "bourgeoisie" which, ironically, means working middle class, while he pinned every single form of working class into "Proletariat" which, while not as inaccurate as his definition of bourgeoisie, is still a very specific type of worker (the type that has no use to the society other than with his work), and then started a tall tale of how the world's been the stage of war between these two fictional classes.
by Democratic Communist Federation » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:45 pm
Grenartia wrote:I mean, what's the difference between a state and a government that does things you don't like?
Mark A. Foster a.k.a. Mōšẹh ʾẠhărōn hạ•Lēwiy bẹn Hẹʿrəšẹʿl wrote:To Engels, the state will “wither away” in the second, and possibly final, stage of communism. The idea of a state should, I think, be placed into its historical context. The modern nation state and capitalism are twin vestiges of the European and North American Enlightenment. The two systems, taken together, became the foundation of the capitalist world–system. Capitalism was viewed as a rational, or liberal, economic ideology. The nation state was regarded as a rational, or liberal, alternative to the monarchies which dominated the Western, as well as the Eastern, world. Marx rejected idealism, while favoring materialism, in his Critique of the German Ideology. The nation state and capitalism are part and parcel of the same political economy. Since Marx and Engels were communist internationalists, they denounced the capitalist–based state, not Proletarian world governance.
Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective
[color=#ff0000]Member,[/color] [url=https://www.nationstates.net/nation=democratic_communist_federation/detail=factbook/id=870177][color=#ff0000][u]Antifa Dialectical metaRealism[/u][/color][/url]
by Northern Davincia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:57 pm
Autarkheia wrote:Same. Ancoms are overly idealistic, and ancaps are kind of nuts, but at least they're not openly stanning for mass-murdering dictatorships. (Except the helicopter memers, of course.)
Kowani wrote:Groucho Marx was better than Karl Marx, ngl.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Torrocca » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:03 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Torrocca wrote:
... That's not kritarchy, because the judges (in an Anarchist system) don't have the ability to rule anything and are held accountable to the people, rather than vice versa.
Juries are pretty much voluntary already, anyway. It's not difficult to opt-out of jury duty.
THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING JUDGES?
If they literally have no power to sentence anything, why have them?
Aellex wrote:Torrocca wrote:
You do realize I'm an internationalist revolutionary, right, and not a, "oh yeah totally doing random acts of terrorism is a legit form of Anarchism that'll achieve an Anarchist society lololol eggs dee xD!!1!"-ist, right?
Yes, but I'm just kindly pointing out the roots of your ideology and what it spend most of its time doing, that's to say wanton murder and act of terrorism.
Anarchists didn't get such a bad rep for nothing.
Torrocca wrote:
... Some sort of holding area, I suppose?
That's a prison.If I'm not mistaken, defendants aren't usually tossed straight into prisons without a trial first.
Prisons are used to both hold suspects before a trial, and convicts after the trial.
Northern Davincia wrote:A juror can't simply opt-out once they've been selected, short of an emergency. Besides, you'd have a hard time finding suitable jurors without mandatory summons.
God, how the hell did I end up agreeing with you over Torra?
by Autarkheia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:16 pm
Memeing about supporting mass murder is at best edgy and in poor taste.
by Northern Davincia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Torrocca wrote:... Because ND was suggesting that I was advocating for mid-trial opt-outs when I wasn't?
Grenartia wrote:This is pretty much my biggest problem with anarchism, and why I'm not an anarchist, because states are so necessary that their existence is inescapable, and their non-existence is undesirable. Though, as I've said before, most of the time, I'll gladly side with the anarchist left before I ever side with the anarchist right, and especially before I'd side with the tankies and fascists.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Torrocca » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:52 pm
by Northern Davincia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:57 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Torrocca » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:35 pm
by Northern Davincia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:33 pm
Torrocca wrote:Northern Davincia wrote:Unless you voted against those rules.
m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s
Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.
There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:37 pm
Northern Davincia wrote:Torrocca wrote:
m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s
Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.
There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.
So, if one doesn't participate, how can we gauge their consent?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Kohr, Tiami
Advertisement