That's true most are not violent people, unless they are attacking what they view as an instrument of the state.
that is complete fucking bollocks, you look at the (acutally often quite detailed and well analysed) reasons anarchists and the like criticise the SP and other Trot Groups, its because they dont take such a view of that, as being necessary or even necessarily OK (some criticisms which i agree have some merit tbh), and in fact view some - SOME - of the police as being capable to being won over to our side, a pov i agree with because i don't think cops can be viewed in such a simplisitc light
as for anarchists, when was the last time you saw an anarchist attack "what they view as an instrument of the state"
I dont mean defend themselves in a kettle, I dont mean chucking paint at a car, I dont mean smashing a widnow, I mean deliberately setting out to harm and kill policemen, politicians, and so on, i mean planting bombs, etc etc etc
IT NEVER HAPPENS DOES IT
whereas, through the centuries, how many people have been the victims of state / corprorate violence? how many people have small and vilified groups of anarchists, trots, or anyone else killed through deliberate, cold-blooded, calculated actions designed to hurt and kill compared to how many people capitalism and the state (in their various guises) have killed for the simple fact that they have the implied use of massive and deadly force on their side. Do you get what Im saying, and do you get why the two (as stupid and counterproductive as some of the violent protesters' actions occasionally are) can NOT be compared.
I find it really objectionable that you are trying to slander protesters - of whatever political persuasion - and then separate them from everyone else by describing them as "violent" and feigning concern for people who have their "futures wrecked" etc, we all know who the real violence is being carried out by, the economic and physical violence - and your attempt to introduce some sort of false moral equivalency by deflecting attention from the actions of the police at the behest of party which you support and is now in government is utterly disgraceful. without this lot (and i mean the labour party as it behaved in gov't as well btw) there would be no need for any protests
yo usaid, "I know how socialists operate" (like some sort of right wing ex leftie whose seen the light) and then some bollocks about violence, so its no surprise some of us became angry because we know this not to be the case, and i find it really objectionable that you describe people in those terms when you know for a fact it simply isnt true, again im not talking about the sp im talking generally, you know that most anarchists etc wont hurt a fly, and yet you keep making insinuations about violence, you mention violence and then say that because you used to be a socialist it means that you know how these groups are, so who and what the fuck did you mean then?
ive got no problems with people making criticisms of anything - in fact as you can see from my posts i always try (altho i don't always succeed) to be even handed and balanced about everything - but theyve got to make damned fucking sure it is accurate
either you didnt mean what you said or you meant to say something else (in which case you should think about what you say a bit more) or you did mean it and are now embarassed at saying it
