Why does Stefan incessantly put down Mandela and glorify the pro apartheid govt/system by citing economic/socio statistics in favour of the latter. The validity of those pronouncements are unimportant to me. Mandela's cause was simple...removing the shackles of apartheid on his countrymen/women. If he/you are intellectually averse to forms of govt. and laws in general why the clear preference of the racist and violent govt. ? Or did I miss something. I did not miss his disdain for colonialism.
I assume you walk amongst us as a Canadian. How do you square your politics while you continue to benefit from some of the social benefits this country provides? Maybe you'll surprise me and volunteer that Stefan/you are independently resourceful, have rejected the Health care system and pay out of pocket for any medical attention you have or hope to receive in your life time. Just an example.
In practical terms what you are calling for is a form of isolationism especially in the current climate of globalization (no fan here). Impractical and somewhat dangerous when one considers the communications interconnectivity. btw...while you provided a partial hats off to Aung San isnt she now part of the govt. of Myanmar? That must not go down well. Non violent but sits down with the jailers (on equal terms) to hopefully improve everyone's lot.
Last edited by Bendit; Thu Dec 19th, 2013 at 05:55 PM. Reason: Removed comparison of Mandela & Aung San (last sentence).
As for the above quote, Anarchism is not about no controls, it's about no rulers, and Anarchist (real Anarchists, not "Austrians," Rothbardians, Anar-caps, etc), have always talked about collectives and federations as ways to have basic rules and make the buses run on time, etc, in ways that are as voluntary and distributed as possible, and as inclusive and particpatory otherwise.
Many where even somewhat positive about Republics, as in the kind of democracies typical of modern countries. The State they where fighting against was quite a different one, i.e, the France, Germany and Russia of Bakunin's time.
"Liberty is so great a magician, endowed with so marvelous a power of productivity, that under the inspiration of this spirit alone, North America was able within less than a century to equal, and even surpass, the civilization of Europe." -- Bakunin.
Anarchists want people to make rules and manage resources collectively, without property and without the State. "The State" is not meant to be understood as meaning the same thing as any Government, The State is to be understood in the sense of a fuedal state, an institution that demmands tribute and grants privilge, thereby creating classes.
While formal aristocratic tites are not as much a feature of modern states, by enforcing property rights over the great inhereted fortunes, the function remains the same. Anarchist believe in either collective property or "usufruct" possesion, meaning that either your own something colletively, or if you own something individually than you must be the one that uses it and posseses it.
This "non violence" stuff is just bullshit from the "right libertarian" collection of talking points, and it just provides a way to justify ignoring domination and exploitation and condeming those that stand up to it, as we've seen above. A position that can only be held by the already privildged,
Last edited by Quirk; Fri Dec 20th, 2013 at 04:20 AM.
Thanks for the post/reply...it was very informative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)