|
The Warszawa posted:What culture holds burglary as a tenet, what religion proclaims "thou shalt boost thy neighbor's poo poo from his home"? The thug culture of taking everything and not giving a poo poo that has been spreading in urban areas and religion base I mean the ones that are kill or stone them if we can not convert them or wipe them out. You know like Christianity and Islam in the past before the got way passive.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Well generally younger people around my generation. Even my younger brother got suckered into it and spends his time in jail. I guess from poorer families to. Young and poor seem to basically fill the common elements. You know it seems like maybe, just maybe, the current economic system grounds people into doing these things to survive or escape from the misery of their lives. Perhaps a more social based economy is needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:The thug culture of taking everything and not giving a poo poo that has been spreading in urban areas and religion base I mean the ones that are kill or stone them if we can not convert them or wipe them out. You know like Christianity and Islam in the past before the got way passive. So basically Wall Street?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:You know it seems like maybe, just maybe, the current economic system grounds people into doing these things to survive or escape from the misery of their lives. Perhaps a more social based economy is needed. Probably more just to fuel drug dependencies. My brother had food and shelter given to him all that was asked was stay out of drugs. Didn't stop him The Warszawa posted:So basically Wall Street? Ya basically. Some Corporates are just well organized gangs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:The thug culture of taking everything and not giving a poo poo that has been spreading in urban areas and religion base I mean the ones that are kill or stone them if we can not convert them or wipe them out. You know like Christianity and Islam in the past before the got way passive. All of this describes neoliberalism perfectly
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Probably more just to fuel drug dependencies. My brother had food and shelter given to him all that was asked was stay out of drugs. Didn't stop him This isn't me trying to be snarky but did he also receive some sort of treatment for his addiction(s)? Just providing an addict with shelter and food isn't alone going to make them stop doing drugs. e: he also might have some underlying mental illness that would probably need to be addressed as well. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:This isn't me trying to be snarky but did he also receive some sort of treatment for his addiction(s)? Just providing an addict with shelter and food isn't alone going to make them stop doing drugs. O ya he did but that was later after issues and going to jail. It was part of his parole but he got kicked out because he made a gay joke and the institute thought he was gay and went back to jail. It was weird. E: Ya he has been on meds for a bit but I think he stopped taking them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Probably more just to fuel drug dependencies. My brother had food and shelter given to him all that was asked was stay out of drugs. Didn't stop him Because the brain/soul/personality damage was already done. In country with a better social system perhaps he could have been helped when he was young enough for it to do some good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
I think it's interesting that people will rally to nationalism and culture-ism when they feel their lives are under siege.WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Because the brain/soul/personality damage was already done. In country with a better social system perhaps he could have been helped when he was young enough for it to do some good. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
I was wondering if we could return discussion to the fascists and other authoritarians in Europe. For instance I want to talk about the further threats to democracies posed by Right Wing Authoritarians like Gert Widlers who seem to want to mix neoliberalism with a strong doses of racism. (Despite his claims to "just be islamiphobic, he wants Bulgaria and Romania out of the EU.) I really think that while the rise of the golden dawn in greece is terrifying, the fact that such a person is arising in Western Europe is far more troubling. Also I would like to know what are western Europeans thoughts about dealing with this quasi merging of fascism and neoliberalism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I was wondering if we could return discussion to the fascists and other authoritarians in Europe. For instance I want to talk about the further threats to democracies posed by Right Wing Authoritarians like Gert Widlers who seem to want to mix neoliberalism with a strong doses of racism. (Despite his claims to "just be islamiphobic, he wants Bulgaria and Romania out of the EU.) I really think that while the rise of the golden dawn in greece is terrifying, the fact that such a person is arising in Western Europe is far more troubling. Also I would like to know what are western Europeans thoughts about dealing with this quasi merging of fascism and neoliberalism? Nothing new under the sun. Fascists and capital have always collaborated to keep the left down in times of crisis. I suppose the only way to deal with it is for activist groups to try and find out where the funding for the fash comes from and name and shame any enterprising Captain of Industry dumb enough to have anything to do with the fash. Otherwise we're still essentially relegated to doing damage control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Nothing new under the sun. Fascists and capital have always collaborated to keep the left down in times of crisis. That'd be nice. Wilders has worked hard to obfuscate his funding sources since forever. Personally, I think a good bunch of it comes from groups in the US, given how he sometimes shows up to give speeches to some fringe groups there that nobody really knows or cares about. His speeches in foreign countries also tend to be significantly more extreme than those for domestic consumption, yet the Dutch press never uses this to my knowledge. Where said groups get their money from, who even knows?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:That'd be nice. Wilders has worked hard to obfuscate his funding sources since forever. Personally, I think a good bunch of it comes from groups in the US, given how he sometimes shows up to give speeches to some fringe groups there that nobody really knows or cares about. His speeches in foreign countries also tend to be significantly more extreme than those for domestic consumption, yet the Dutch press never uses this to my knowledge. Where said groups get their money from, who even knows? I have heard it claimed that he gets his support from the christian right in the USA which is interesting that an ostensible Secularist gets support from a bunch of theocrats. Of course I know its not that hard to believe that racist shitheads support each over despite religious differences. I do have to wonder what kind of damage such a repugnanant rear end in a top hat could do to the nertherlands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Historical anarchists have very little to do with anything. Because Archduke Ferdinand shot himself? I dunno, the Great War seems like it might have been important, but what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Doomtalker posted:Because Archduke Ferdinand shot himself? I dunno, the Great War seems like it might have been important, but what do I know? I'm pretty sure they were Serbian nationalists, not anarchists. Leon Czolgosz, who assassinated William McKinley, was an anarchist, though. Edit: Other guys you may have gotten the Black Hand assassins confused with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anarchist_assassins
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Fair enough, anarchists have little to do with anything other than making piss poor attempts to bring about revolution that usually results in left wing movements being crushed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Doomtalker posted:Because Archduke Ferdinand shot himself? I dunno, the Great War seems like it might have been important, but what do I know? As said, that was Serbian nationalists who very much loved government so long as it was Serbian. Raskolnikov38 posted:Fair enough, anarchists have little to do with anything other than making piss poor attempts to bring about revolution that usually results in left wing movements being crushed. Pretty much this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:As said, that was Serbian nationalists who very much loved government so long as it was Serbian. Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia, the group Princip belonged to) wasn't a Serbian organization. They were an odd mix of Bosnian students, socialists, anarchists, various nationalists, and everyone else willing to do crazy poo poo in order to topple Austria-Hungarian regime. They were greatly aided by the Black Hand (whose leader admitted planning the assassination), which was an even stranger organization - It started as a group of officers who wanted to bring down a dictatorship and institute a more democracy friendly royal family in Serbia (they did this by wiping out the Obrenovic dynasty and bringing back the Karadjordjevic dynasty), and turned into this weird nationalist anarchist assassin terrorist cult thing which tried to control the Serbian government (unsuccessfully, but they did have a lot of influence), bring down AH, and create a unified South Slav state (their leaders were executed in the 1917 Salonika trial before seeing this happen). And then, if you believe, there's their opposite organization, the White Hand, and things get even crazier from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:As said, that was Serbian nationalists who very much loved government so long as it was Serbian. Gavrilo Princip posted:I am an adherent of the radical anarchist idea, which aims at destroying the present system through terrorism in order to bring a liberal system in its place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
He wants to being a liberal democracy in place, that's what he means by liberal system. You're not much of an anarchist if your goal is liberal democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:He wants to being a liberal democracy in place, that's what he means by liberal system. You're not much of an anarchist if your goal is liberal democracy. When you live in what is basically an old regime monarchy, you are called anarchist or jacobin if you support democracy and liberalism. Revolutionary liberalism may sound weird to our 21st-century ears, it was very much a force in the nineteenth century. Of course, Princip was also linked to other, weirder, ideologies, that were already referred to (Black Hand etc).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
I'm quite certain that a person who says he ascribes to "the radical anarchist idea" does not mean what we think of as "liberal democracy" when he says he wants to supplant the existing order with a "liberal system". Just as the term libertarian does not mean the same today as it did during the Spanish Civil War. He did identify as a Yugoslav nationalist though, but he also identifies as an anarchist. He also said he did not care what form the government of Yugoslavia took as long as it was freed from Austria. That was his primary goal he, aimed to use terrorism to bring down the Austro-Hungarian Empire in order to free the south Slavs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
When people from that time used terms that translate to "liberal system" they do mean liberal democracies.Antwan3K posted:When you live in what is basically an old regime monarchy, you are called anarchist or jacobin if you support democracy and liberalism. Revolutionary liberalism may sound weird to our 21st-century ears, it was very much a force in the nineteenth century. Right, which is why we would not refer to him as an actual anarchist today, unless we were also going to refer to the Republican Party in the current US as anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Doomtalker posted:Because Archduke Ferdinand shot himself? I dunno, the Great War seems like it might have been important, but what do I know? The Great War would've been started sooner or later because the underlying reasons for the empires to beat the poo poo out of each other were increasing political accidents and near-war experiences ever since the Berlin Conference. It's kind of funny though how anarchists' main political pride is how they poo poo this or that monarch or bureaucrat. From Portugal and Spain to Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary and Russia anarchists had the amazing capacity to murder individuals and then being riddled with bullets themselves. They never seem to discuss how positive changes, big or small, only happened after organized action by socialists, communists or liberal-democrats, though. It's like anarchists think that states function just like their little organizations, where if the dude who has a van goes to prison then the entire movement is crushed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:This is extremely naive. You are conflating mass base and intellectual vanguard. Fascism has intellectuals and ideologues, like any ideology. I assure you, there are fascists with huge libraries, filled with philosophy and political theory. Some of these are even very popular in more mainstream academia (Schmitt, Croce, Hegel). More political knowledge and theoretical or historical reading does not prevent you from becoming or staying fascist. No, I'm pretty sure we were both talking specifically about the mass base. And honestly the intuition behind my original comment about Bolsheviks being better read was that while the fascists' intellectuals may have had great libraries, their mass base most likely did not. By contrast Bolsheviks would have been more likely to both encourage reading and to have libraries for the mass base. Hell, the Bolshevik intellectual vanguard would probably have placed their own book collections in the community library.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
The archduke was killed by serbian nationalists, because he was attempting to grant serbs greater autonomy in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and that would undermine serb nationalism. How the gently caress is anarchism in there at all.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Seriously people, words change. This is as dumb as saying 19th century English politicians would be in favor of LGBT rights because they're "liberals".
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:When you live in what is basically an old regime monarchy, you are called anarchist or jacobin if you support democracy and liberalism. Revolutionary liberalism may sound weird to our 21st-century ears, it was very much a force in the nineteenth century. Robespierre and St Just didn't want a liberal democracy man. They wanted a state rationally governed by a politbureau with a kind of platonic state religion of virtue. They were cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Robespierre and St Just didn't want a liberal democracy man. They wanted a state rationally governed by a politbureau with a kind of platonic state religion of virtue. They were cool. I'm not sure how the third point follows from the first two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Robespierre and St Just didn't want a liberal democracy man. They wanted a state rationally governed by a politbureau with a kind of platonic state religion of virtue. They were cool. Robespierre wanted to establish a republic of virtue and terror and viewed the latter as an essential, irreplaceable component of the former. The man was wound too tight under the best of circumstances, and given the reigns of power he was totally loving nuts. When your response to moderate/reactionary concerns that you might be going too far is to actively go too drat far, you must bear a fair share of responsibility for the downfall of the revolution and rise of the corrupt Directory and Imperial state that follows. What, if anything, this has to do with modern fascism in Europe, I cannot say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Robespierre wanted to establish a republic of virtue and terror and viewed the latter as an essential, irreplaceable component of the former. The man was wound too tight under the best of circumstances, and given the reigns of power he was totally loving nuts. When your response to moderate/reactionary concerns that you might be going too far is to actively go too drat far, you must bear a fair share of responsibility for the downfall of the revolution and rise of the corrupt Directory and Imperial state that follows. He did. He repeatedly said that he expected to die for what he did, but saw it as necessary. The Napoleonic state might have sucked, but it was already institutionally so massive an improvement upon the old regime, due to the radical historical break instigated by the Jacobins. We couldn't have arrived at the period of history that came after the terror without the terror itself. Without this break you get a mere false revolution, like the American revolution, or fascism. We should repeat this and seriously think about putting the primary instigators of the financial crisis on trial, and reforming the state so that it can once again function properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
 Surely there are better ways of preventing the bourgeois from regaining power than reintroducing the national razor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
Egypt: Peacefully overthrows entrenched authoritarianism and allows most former regime officials off. Two years later, they have a military dictatorship that is basically the same thing as the old regime, if not worse. Libya: Kills the gently caress out of their dictator and most other regime officials. Two years later, they have a relatively functioning (if kinda unstable) democracy. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
What are revolutionaries supposed to do? Leave the old power structure to hang around for reactionaries to rally around and try to put back into power?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:What are revolutionaries supposed to do? Leave the old power structure to hang around for reactionaries to rally around and try to put back into power? I dunno, but maybe killing everyone that dares to say "dude, are you sure that's a good idea?" isn't that great for cementing revolutionary legitimacy. To be clear, I'm speaking to the Robespierre example here, and am in no way alluding to recent events in North Africa and the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Egypt: Peacefully overthrows entrenched authoritarianism and allows most former regime officials off. Two years later, they have a military dictatorship that is basically the same thing as the old regime, if not worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
I see no reason why the removal of an existing power structure requires the literal rolling of heads to accomplish. Of course the existing structure will resist its existence coming to an end but violence against them should be in response to them becoming violent and be proportional. Terrors very rarely end well for those that instigate them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:If that had happened in Egypt you probably would have ended up with a right-wing theocracy. If you had to choose between that and the return of the military dictatorship, well okay but that's a horribly bleak choice to make. You're doing that thing right-wingers do where they assume any assumption of power by the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups guarantees Iran/Saudi Arabia style oppressive theocracy. it doesn't 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:You're doing that thing right-wingers do where they assume any assumption of power by the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups guarantees Iran/Saudi Arabia style oppressive theocracy. Another mistake I'd caution you all against making is assuming that the correct application of force--x amount of revolutionary terror or not--will get you a socialist system or a liberal democratic system or whatever you like. Egypt is a case where that wasn't really in the cards. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I see no reason why the removal of an existing power structure requires the literal rolling of heads to accomplish. Of course the existing structure will resist its existence coming to an end but violence against them should be in response to them becoming violent and be proportional. Terrors very rarely end well for those that instigate them. Mark Twain posted:"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves." There's no need to wait for monarchs and aristocrats to get violent. Their rule is violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 06:17
|
|