No, sunshine, the technique is to THINK ON.butchersapron said:Roll your eyes some more. That's a good technique.
No, sunshine, the technique is to THINK ON.butchersapron said:Roll your eyes some more. That's a good technique.
The path is perfectly simple. Destroy business and you destroy everyone.butchersapron said:So go ahead and employ it - demonstrate the path. You're signally failing to so so by posting a series of roll eyes - sunshine.
What is the point in partially affecting business? This is not a wind-up, I'm genually interested in your (radical?) perspective.butchersapron said:Cool.
What about partially affecting business for a short time. Does this also get a roll eyes and biblical warning?
Thanks for your enlightened reply.butchersapron said:Well frankly, you can whistle mate - esp at 2 am. I was reducing your crude agrument to a stupidity, not offering a defence of anything, your equation of production with business was just too crass to ignore.
IMHO said:Just to add, no anti-caps on this site have ever offered a workable transition to any other system, taking the hearts and minds of the "majority" (christ, don't we just hate the majority).
Strawman = set up a false fairy to get knocked down? Where have I done that?butchersapron said:You should team up with mears - he has a similiar line of redundant strawman chatter.
Eh? I never implied anything about a "blueprint". I'd use the word "evolve", which I know is heresy.butchersapron said:How did feudalism change into the capitalism that you argue 'works? Was it by the impostion of a pre-agreed blueprint? Tell us all about the historic transition via blueprint then please.
IMHO said:Eh? I never implied anything about a "blueprint". I'd use the word "evolve", which I know is heresy.
Sounds like a request for a precise, laid out plan to me. Leaving aside the fact that your definition of "workable" seems to be entirely centered around what appeals to your predjudices.IMHO said:Just to add, no anti-caps on this site have ever offered a workable transition to any other system, taking the hearts and minds of the "majority" (christ, don't we just hate the majority).
What on earth do you think a blueprint means? Something like thisIMHO said:Eh? I never implied anything about a "blueprint". I'd use the word "evolve", which I know is heresy.
It's centered around what HISTORICALLY works.In Bloom said:Sounds like a request for a precise, laid out plan to me. Leaving aside the fact that your definition of "workable" seems to be entirely centered around what appeals to your predjudices.
You want a blueprint of the past then. Or better, you want a blueprint of the future that looks exactly like the present.IMHO said:It's centered around what HISTORICALLY works.
Do enlighten us all, what "HISTORICALLY (sic!) works"?IMHO said:It's centered around what HISTORICALLY works.
thats not actually true. Some of the contributers i know were present (not that i can see this makes a blind bit of difference one way or the other)Originally Posted by free spirit
fuck revisionist bollocks, the 'days of dissent' thing dissent published prior to the g8 missed the 98 global protests out too, basically because the people who wrote it weren't there, therefore it can't have been important / happened (or they forgot)
i think re-writing history is a bit of an exageration dont you think? incomplete maybe, but so what? i dont see why you seem to think its such an enormous crime or why the absence of a report about Birmingham merits an in depth investigationfree spirit said:fair enough, the peeps I know who were involved in putting it together definately weren't there, wasn't sure how many people were involved in putting it together, but it really pissed me off that they managed to rewrite history
(unless my copy had a page missing?)
i think re-writing history is a bit of an exageration dont you think? incomplete maybe, but so what? i dont see why you seem to think its such an enormous crime or why the absence of a report about Birmingham merits an in depth investigation
im sure there are no shortage of people writing these partial histories from various angles. But the fact is you cant draw a line a the sand and say this or that is the event that started the ball rolling. I could come back at you and ask 'what about Reclaim the Future?' (London RTS solidarity with the striking Liverpool dockers in 97 -- who were receiving worldwide solidarity from other dockers/wharfies/longshawmen). Someone else will point to the first 'encuentro' initiated by the Zapatistas in 96. All of these inititives are moments in the reorientation of a milieu and which that led to the development of further initiatives.free spirit said:hmm well I guess it's really just a relatively minor gripe that's been bugging me for a while.
thing is that I think it's important that people who're coming into the movement for the first time, can actually see a bit more of where it came from, in that it didn't start at J18, it built on the foundations set through the birmingham RTS, the global links that were developed through the global street party, as well as the many RTS's prior to that.
Basically if someone's going to do a history of the global anti-cap movement, then they may as well do it properly, that's all i'm saying really.
Top Dog said:im sure there are no shortage of people writing these partial histories from various angles. But the fact is you cant draw a line a the sand and say this or that is the event that started the ball rolling. I could come back at you and ask 'what about Reclaim the Future?' (London RTS solidarity with the striking Liverpool dockers in 97 -- who were receiving worldwide solidarity from other dockers/wharfies/longshawmen). Someone else will point to the first 'encuentro' initiated by the Zapatistas in 96. All of these inititives are moments in the reorientation of a milieu and which that led to the development of further initiatives.