Bash the Rich!

[The Black Hand]

I'm quite probably old enough to be your father, although if I was I'd have drowned you at birth, most likely. You're spouting nonsense. You plan to bring about a revolution that's going to change the way capitalist society is run? And you're going to do it by killing people. That's not a revolution, it's reform. You are utterly confused. You're going to abolish commodities. But they'll still be able to be made. Yeah!

You might think that I am arrogant and stupid, and I can see why you might think that. It's because that is precisely what you are. I've seen some very sloppy thinking over the years, but you could win prizes.

You have understood nothing my friend. You know little of the origins and history of 'bash the rich' and would rather bore us all with your perfect but achieve nothing view of radical change. AS it goes there will be no deaths that day (unfortunately I hear you all scream), I hope there will be some rich bashing but I think the filth will stop it all. SO! Now we've established your critique is not worth anything so far - and it is your stupidity too that assumes workers will destroy the ability to make things. Have you not noticed we will need things? Like hospitals/surgical equipment, houses, beds, cookers. Well they will in my communist future - in yours you say they will appear as if by magic.

Butchers! Quick - the cult has been spotted! I sensed it earlier but you gave him too much benefit of the doubt

 

[GuruYoghourt]

Which cult do you hang around with daddy or have you left them all?

That means which organisation (SPGB/ICC etc) and/or union are you in and have you left the 'left'?

I don't hang around with any cults. And why've you stopped calling me unpleasant names? I was beginning to enjoy it.

 

[butchersapron]

Why should today's anarchists listen to anything that the antisemitic, grotesquely chauvinist, 19th Century bigotted twat called Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had to say?

Because his ideas about federalism and decentralisation as responses to societies complexity are still relevant to the modern world and can stand on their own merits aside from his eccentriticities?

I did give him the benefit attica, but not now - not after that arrogant nonsense he posted above.

 

[The Black Hand]

I don't hang around with any cults. And why've you stopped calling me unpleasant names? I was beginning to enjoy it.

You still haven't said whether you hang around with any organisation or not. Do you?

 

[Dillinger4]

Why should today's anarchists listen to anything that the antisemitic, grotesquely chauvinist, 19th Century bigotted twat called Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had to say?

I believe that is known as an 'ad hominem' argument. Saves you having to engage with actual ideas. Might be a bit taxing that.

 

[GuruYoghourt]

You still haven't said whether you hang around with any organisation or not. Do you?

Say something nasty and I might answer that question-not that it's relevant.

 

[Dillinger4]

I'm quite probably old enough to be your father, although if I was I'd have drowned you at birth, most likely. You're spouting nonsense. You plan to bring about a revolution that's going to change the way capitalist society is run? And you're going to do it by killing people. That's not a revolution, it's reform. You are utterly confused. You're going to abolish commodities. But they'll still be able to be made. Yeah!

You might think that I am arrogant and stupid, and I can see why you might think that. It's because that is precisely what you are. I've seen some very sloppy thinking over the years, but you could win prizes.

You are proper unpleasant.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I believe that is known as an 'ad hominem' argument. Saves you having to engage with actual ideas. Might be a bit taxing that.

Am I wrong, Dillinger4?

Imagine Proudhon here today, relating his ideas to us.
We'd think he was a chauvinist, a bigot, and intolerant of other cultures, wouldn't we?

 

[The Black Hand]

Say something nasty and I might answer that question-not that it's relevant.

I know you hang around a cult - are you happy leaving it like that for any other readers? There IS a very small chance I could be wrong, but I do not think so at present.

 

[Dillinger4]

Am I wrong, Dillinger4?

Imagine Proudhon here today, relating his ideas to us.
We'd think he was a chauvinist, a bigot, and intolerant of other cultures, wouldn't we?

Not only is that not a realistic proposition, it again does not actually engage with any ideas he suggests.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying your argument is flawed.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Because his ideas about federalism and decentralisation as responses to societies complexity are still relevant to the modern world and can stand on their own merits aside from his eccentriticities?

But I find him offensive to the extreme on so many counts. He said that Jews had placed themselves "beyond the conscience of the human race" in their "stubborn rejection of Jesus". I mean, that's a bit much to accept from an anarchist. How am I supposed to accept this type of authoritarian bigotry and chauvinism today?

Isn't there someone, anyone, any other anarchist philosopher or social scientist who's written about decentralism and federalism that I won't find philosophically repulsive or ethically wanting? And what is so important about Proudhon's theories on decentralism and federalism to anarchism?

e2a: Proudhon's theories on

 

[Dillinger4]

But I find him offensive to the extreme on so many counts. He said that Jews had placed themselves "beyond the conscience of the human race" in their "stubborn rejection of Jesus". I mean, that's a bit much to accept from an anarchist. How am I supposed to accept this type of authoritarian bigotry and chauvinism today?

Isn't there someone, anyone, any other anarchist philosopher or social scientist who's written about decentralism and federalism that I won't find philosophically repulsive or ethically wanting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Not only is that not a realistic proposition, it again does not actually engage with any ideas he suggests.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying your argument is flawed.

Proudhon conceived of a final solution one hundred years before the Hitler's National Socialists. And you say my argument is flawed? Why should todays anarchists give this right-wing racist's work the time of day?

Jews
- make a provision against this race which poisons everything by meddling everywhere without ever merging with any other people
- Demand its expulsion from France, except for individuals married to Frenchwomen.
- Abolish the synagogues; don't allow them to enter any kind of employment; finally proceed with the abolition of this religion.

It is not for nothing that the Christians called them deicides. The Jew is the enemy of mankind. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it.

He was an authoritarian right-wing chauvinist bigotted prejudiced twat of the highest order. There's nothing leftist about Proudhon, and he doesn't measure up to modern anarchist ideology. Proudhon is full of fail.

 

[In Bloom]

And what is so important about decentralism and federalism to anarchism?

Are you fucking serious?

Proudhon held a lot of views that were, by todays standards, fucking vile, but the fact is that he was a product of his time. The ideas put forward by Proudhon are pretty important, in terms of the history of anarchism, regardless of what a nasty individual he may have been.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Sorry, IB, I should have said 'And what is so important about Proudhon's theories on decentralism and federalism to anarchism?'

In fact, I'm going to add that, because that is what BA mentioned, and I asked for other theorists who wouldn't be repulsive by todays standards.

 

[In Bloom]

Well, things have moved on a great deal since Proudhon's time, but the point is that you can't just ignore the very real impact he had on the development of anarchist ideas.

Personally, I think that what little I've read of Proudhon is poorly written, idealistic nonsense, but it's important nonsense, nonetheless

 

[TopCat]

Rather the rich than the mob.

Behold etc...

 

[TopCat]

Hey! Who's an aggressive chappie? I'll tell you what, kid. A bunch of so-called anarchists staging a risible theatrical performance is no threat whatsoever to the ruling class. In fact, if people like that didn't exist the ruling class would employ people to stage such displays, just to sidetrack those who are actually concerned about effecting meaningful change.

You see, you need to understand how flexible, adaptable and capable of absorbing dissent capitalism is. Anarchists rioting outside the World Trade Centre? No threat. Aeroplanes aimed at buildings? Not a problem. The only possible threat to the status quo is the working-class understanding why capitalism can never work in their interests, and why they must overthrow it and replace it with a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. When the working-class have that understanding, and rise up to end capitalism, not reform it with some ludicrous leftist state-capitalist dictatorship, then, and only then, will the ruling class have something to worry about. That's what I work for. And you're in the way.

So the only "answer" is developing the perfect dialcetic..

What a toss.

"Action is the lifeblood, without action your nothing".....

 

[TopCat]

Well, if you bother to read what I've written I'm sure that you'll retract the 'moron' bit. As for being arrogant, thanks very much.

Tosser...

 

[TopCat]

Well the anti-activist moaners can moan.

The lib com students can bleat,

Who cares?

We know most don't agree with us now. Are we surprised?

Were coming.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Personally, I think that what little I've read of Proudhon is poorly written, idealistic nonsense, but it's important nonsense, nonetheless

I often wonder how many of his ideas were truly original. (Very few, probably) I wonder how much he took from Godwin, esp. in terms of decentralism/federalism.

Others before Proudhon had asserted that ownership/property is theft - he wasn't the first. What about the Diggers? There's obviously a Christian undertone to Proudhon's writing, so perhaps he took this from Aquinas who postulated that all property belongs to G0D, therfore Man can only use things, not own them, and to claim ownership is in effect, stealing from G0D. Before Aquinas, Aristotle said much the same, only he substituted Nature for G0D.

None of Proudhon's ideas were original - his ideas on mutualism, microloans etc were already in existance in cooperatives and independent religious communities, his ideas of decentralism and federalism had already been discussed and developed in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Proudhon later said that 'Property is freedom' (no-one ever really mentions that). Proudhon later renounced anarchism (splitter!), so if he's considered by some as the father of modern anarchism, then he's the father who sired his child to an woman he later abandoned after publicly humiliating her, beating her up, then failing to pay maintenance for the rest of that child's childhood.

Anarchism doesn't need "great" men of history - it needs sound theories and direct action, plus continuous adaptation and application to the times we find ourselves living in.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Anarchism doesn't need "great" men of history - it needs sound theories and direct action, plus continuous adaptation and application to the times we find ourselves living in.

Really? As if you would have a clue, you pro-state apologist

 

[invisibleplanet]

THE SHOCK OF VICTORY, by David Graeber
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/message/10219

 

[In Bloom]

Behold etc...

As fantastic a slogan as "Behold your future executioners" was, do you not think it's pretty telling that the police managed to force you to march away from the areas rich people lived in with it? Not so much a crack anarcho-hit squad as situationists on crack, really.

 

[TopCat]

As fantastic a slogan as "Behold your future executioners" was, do you not think it's pretty telling that the police managed to force you to march away from the areas rich people lived in with it? Not so much a crack anarcho-hit squad as situationists on crack, really.

So don't come along and definately don't come along to all the other stuff were planning. I'm sure you have a long book to read now so run along eh?

 

[GuruYoghourt]

So don't come along and definately don't come along to all the other stuff were planning. I'm sure you have a long book to read now so run along eh?

I just love the way that supporters of Class War embrace rational discussion! I truly had forgotten just how much fun they can be!

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, no one can blame me if this thread goes tits up.

 

[Dillinger4]

I just love the way that supporters of Class War embrace rational discussion! I truly had forgotten just how much fun they can be!

Get off your high horse, you content free bullshitter.

 

[GuruYoghourt]

Considering that I have written several thousand words in this thread, and have raised a good many important points, not one of which has been addressed by my opponents, and given that I have been subjected to a good deal of unnecessary abuse, not least from yourself, who has contributed precisely nothing of value, I feel completely justified in inviting you to go and have intercourse with spiders, or some other socially-useful act.

 

[revol68]

So don't come along and definately don't come along to all the other stuff were planning. I'm sure you have a long book to read now so run along eh?

reading Viz whilst taking a shit is more revolutionary that this toy town bash the shit march.