Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Is the quote you're looking for.
Admittedly I'm in Vancouver, BC, and maybe things are a bit different here, but I've known a lot of people in the left wing/radical activist community, and it's a mixed bag. Some could be described as left-wing intellectuals. Some are more blue collar. Some work for non-profits or charities. Some are retired or on disability. You get the idea.
Level of government is a pretty well used standard to define left vs right.
Treehugger just because a lot of people in the occupy movement called themselves anarchists doesn't mean they understood the term. Did the occupy movement call for the elimination of government control over, say, the financial industry? That would be consistent with an anarchist viewpoint.
As far as I can tell, the Tea Party does not call for the elimination of government but wants less of it. Calling them anarchists is like calling the average Seattle Democrat a communist because they want an increase in the minimum wage.
An actually well used standard to delineate left from right is "progressive vs conservative".
"Conservative" is a widely misused term to describe the idiots who also self-identify as such, but that does NOT make it accurate or true.
Why would "conservatives" advocate for military intervention in Syria? Why would "conservatives" reject public infrastructure improvements that would stimulate the economy and generate living-wage employment? [We can't ALL work at McDonald's.]
These are just two of the hundreds of examples.
Here's why: Because they're NOT CONSERVATIVES.
They're shallow-minded contrarians who oppose anything that doesn't further line the pockets of their super-wealthy industrial overlords – I mean – campaign contributor pimps.
And for the record, "anarchy", by definition, is the opposition to organized governance and governmental bodies, and the associated political apparatus.
The Nazis and fascists shared a lot of goals with the original progressives.
I'll try to steer this back to my original point (perhaps poorly made)-most people who call themselves anarchists don't understand the meaning of the word since they all seem to be protesting for government solutions to some sort of problem.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Proliffic-Tagger…
Anarchism as a political movement is left wing. It's why many anarchists 90 years ago supported the Soviet Union, because many of them saw communism as a necessary step toward anarchism. In fact, Emma Goldman was persona non grata among many Western anarchists after she fled the Soviet Union because she dared to speak out against the USSR's human rights violations and oppression.
Anarchists believe in eliminating the state but under the condition of creating self-sustaining cooperative communities. They oppose the class system and have historically supported minority rights, women's rights, and the free love movement.
Some inane teabagger/libertarian types like to call themselves anarchists because, like you, they assume it simply means opposition to the state, but it doesn't.
Haven't you seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Noam Chomsky also considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, just FYI.
I don't think that of all left wing activists, I do tend to think that when a left wing activist's political beliefs get more out there and detached from reality. A person on disability, for example, being an anarchist would be profoundly absurd to me since their basic livelihood depends on the state.
The state can be profoundly oppressive of minorities and of people who rely on social welfare to survive, but I think most minorities and disabled people also realize that the cruelty of the state is *nothing* compared to the cruelty, capriciousness, and pettiness of a small group of people, like the consensus-building leadership group of an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
"Level of government is a pretty well used standard to define left vs right" if you are a fuckhead wingnut teabagger who also wants to compare liberals to Nazis and fascists, which people like you and Ann Coulter do.
"The Nazis and fascists shared a lot of goals with the original progressives"? Yeah, because Nazis and fascist are all about civil liberties, equality, the environment, women's rights, helping the poor, peace and regulations on corporate power and all about opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia and war. Yeah, Nazis and fascists are a bunch of peaceniks.
Go fuck yourself sideways with the business end of a rake, you fucking asshole. I hope it makes you bleed to death out of your ass.
"*Nothing*"? WTF. I invite you to Nazi Germany. I invite you to Chile under Pinochet. I invite you to Argentina under the colonels. I invite you to Cambodia under Pol Pot. China during the cultural revolution. The U.S.S.R. under Stalin. East Germany before the Wall came down. The South under slavery. Etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Did I call you insane? Let me amend that: You are fucking insane and delusional. Get help.
Power tends to corrupt. Period. The Stanford Prison Experiment. The activities of police forces that have effectively given their officers a license to kill. The valid comparison isn't the between the state and the "anarcho-syndicalist commune," it's between different limits on power.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/uniq…
Given the sample size and in the absence of repeated trials, it only shows that three of the "guards" were assholes to begin with, and continued to be assholes afterward.
I'm sure many will agree on the corrupt excesses of monied interests and the lack of humanity pervading the SPD, but everyone should be able to condemn the use of bad science to justify anything.
That being said, I would urge the author of this I, Anonymous to at least give some anarchist literature a shot before dismissing it based on one bad experience with a tagger. I would recommend "What Is Anarchism?" by Alexander Berkman. Trust me, we're not all idiots.
Also, spray paint should be a "behind the counter" operation much like we have to go to the pharmacist for cold medications.
liberal -- prefers "liberalization", or the lessening of rules, restrictions, single-group dominance
Left, leftist, Left-wing -- sits on the Left side of the aisle
People who insist on linking Nazis with Socialists want very much for words to lose their meanings. We don't like Nazis because they were assholes regardless of their economic system.
If you're going to lump me into a group, please lump me into the correct one.
Aren't you happy when young, hot guys get to fuck older, nerdy girlfriends?
Isn't a fresh coat of paint worth their artificially stimulated sex lives?
"Right wing" doesn't mean less government.
You appear to not understand much of conventional politics.
So hoe exactly is a non-hierarchical group supposed to "eject" someone they've never met, and who is allied through self-ascription?
@36 Yeah, I feel pretty much the same. I'm actually very anti-pipeline, but I really don't think spraypainting slogans on walls does anything to promote the cause.
The tagger in the link seems like a total asshole, with absolutely no sense of anything.