Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Mr. House]

Something about red pills and feminazis.

 

Stu can provide further details.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mr. House

[MarshalMoo]

Oh. Stu, can you please fill us in?

[GTA_stu]

As a prominent MRA I would love to fill you in on the matriarchy and how it's evil and oppressive, particularly to straight white nice guys such as myself.

 

I'd love to, but I can't. My pocket watch is telling me that The Matrix is just about to start, and then afterwards I have a 3 hour seminar to attend on male circumcision and how it is even more abhorrent than FGM. Good day my gentlesirs.

[theadmiral]

That was really funny, stu

[Clem Fandango]

Who doesn't know how transition to feudal states happens?

For the millionth time: this has nothing to do with anarchism. There are no historical examples of political anarchism leading to feudalism. It didn't happen in the Ukraine, it didn't happen in Catalonia. You seem to entirely ignorant of the history of anarchism, and the distinction between anarchy, a lack of functioning human organisation, and anarchism, a political ideology. The two have no relation other than a phonetic one.

 

As you rightly point out, incompetent people never realise they're incompetent. You probably think your shallow pool of knowledge on the subject is deep enough that you can lecture and condescend to people who actually understand anarchism in historical context.

[Clem Fandango]

 

What does Obama's birth certificate have to do with who is speaking for the middle class? And I would beg to differ. Some Middle class voters who aren't too wise may go for the Tea Party backed candidates, but I would say it is mostly elderly voters and stay at home moms listening to Megyn Kelly all day because she's a hot 40 year old. In fact if you look at the elections, 2010 and 2014 when the Tea Party backed people won (actually 2014 saw a resurgence of more mainstream Republicans) it was years of extremely low voter participation. I think the 2014 election was 34% of registered voters turned up to the polls to cast vote. iwbth847 If we had in the US voting on weekends/voting over two days (some have proposed Sunday - Tuesday voting) I would bet you would see the real middle class vote.

f*cking hell "Americans don't want full Communism" I could have told you that. What they do want, is a massive change in the system, hence why they've been flocking towards the Tea Party with their revolutionary rhetoric.

 

Ask the average American to describe their ideal system, it'd be one with minimal wealth disparity; studies show that, when you ask Americans to describe the ideal wealth disparity between the top and the bottom, at most they'd have the richest guy in the country making three or four times as much as the poorest guy. The issue is that these are abstract ideals and most Americans have no class consciousness or any concept of being able to change anything on a large scale due to America's inherently undemocratic nature (when compared to other liberal democracies, even).

 

No, American's aren't itching for revolution, but to say the average middle class person deeply and consciously rejects Socialism is just completely ridiculous.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Melchior

[MarshalMoo]

 

 

What does Obama's birth certificate have to do with who is speaking for the middle class? And I would beg to differ. Some Middle class voters who aren't too wise may go for the Tea Party backed candidates, but I would say it is mostly elderly voters and stay at home moms listening to Megyn Kelly all day because she's a hot 40 year old. In fact if you look at the elections, 2010 and 2014 when the Tea Party backed people won (actually 2014 saw a resurgence of more mainstream Republicans) it was years of extremely low voter participation. I think the 2014 election was 34% of registered voters turned up to the polls to cast vote. iwbth847 If we had in the US voting on weekends/voting over two days (some have proposed Sunday - Tuesday voting) I would bet you would see the real middle class vote.

f*cking hell "Americans don't want full Communism" I could have told you that. What they do want, is a massive change in the system, hence why they've been flocking towards the Tea Party with their revolutionary rhetoric.

 

Ask the average American to describe their ideal system, it'd be one with minimal wealth disparity; studies show that, when you ask Americans to describe the ideal wealth disparity between the top and the bottom, at most they'd have the richest guy in the country making three or four times as much as the poorest guy. The issue is that these are abstract ideals and most Americans have no class consciousness or any concept of being able to change anything on a large scale due to America's inherently undemocratic nature (when compared to other liberal democracies, even).

 

No, American's aren't itching for revolution, but to say the average middle class person deeply and consciously rejects Socialism is just completely ridiculous.

 

Do you really live in China?

[a20characterusername]

Do you really live in China?

Do you really make constant sh*tposts?

[K^2]

Ask the average American to describe their ideal system

Why is that even relevant?

 

 

You seem to entirely ignorant of the history of anarchism, and the distinction between anarchy, a lack of functioning human organisation, and anarchism, a political ideology. The two have no relation other than a phonetic one.

I don't know why you assume I make no distinction between the two. Anarchism still calls for a stateless society. Which has been status quo historically many times in many societies. It is the goal of your ideology.

 

Since you brought up Ukraine, why don't you explain to me what the fundamental distinction is between what you are suggesting and Veche? It's a perfect example of self-governed stateless society. One that functioned for a while. It then became a feudal state.

 

And again, I challenge you to find me an example of society that didn't go from stateless, to feudal, to some other form of government. Concrete examples. If you feel that something doesn't fit your definitions, provide specific definitions. Don't dodge with "that's not aharchism." Because that's not an argument.

[Docfaustino]

Colombia U suspended exams this week to give students an opportunity to voice their opposition to the non-indictment.

[make total destroy]

 

Again, that's a very simplistic understanding of anarchism. Anarchists reject the state entirely, as it is little more than a committee to negotiate the affairs of the property-owning class. As such, anarchists are too opposed to private property, wage labor, and class society as a whole.

I would consider "no state" an extreme example of weak state. As in, all the sh*t that happens in weak states is guaranteed to happen. And again, no state, no property, no wages, been there. It's nomadic and early agricultural societies. You are describing one verbatim.

 

You are conflating primitive communism and anarchism. They are not the same thing just because they share similarities. One predates the other by several thousand years.

 

 

And there was no gravity prior to 1687. That's a fact.

 

 

 

 

Gravity could not be applied in scientific circles until it was a fleshed-out theory, just as anarchism could not be applied to social organization before it was a theory.

 

Logic just isn't one of the things you ever do, is it?

We can't all be pompous STEM majors.

 

We're not talking about the same thing here.

No, you don't think you are talking about the same thing, because you haven't bothered to learn a bit of history. Otherwise, you'd learn that people have talked about the same thing you're talking about for hundreds of years, and every time it went exactly that way. Forgive my bias, but I'm most familiar with the way it went down in Russia. We had a perfectly good Monarchy transitioning to Constitutional Monarchy. Then anarchists came over saying, "Hey, why transition to constitutional monarchy, when we can do anarchy?" And they were saying what you have been saying word for word. And they helped to overthrow the Czar, and there was no more power. Except, Bolsheviks decided, buger that, they want power. And there was nobody in Russia to stop them. So they took over, established their own little feudal state and executed most of the Anarchists that helped them get power in the first place. As they all deserved, naturally.

 

 

No, you're talking about primitive communism, and I'm talking about anarchism. You're being disingenuous to say the least.

 

It's not news to me that the Bolsheviks turned on the anarchists, but it is news to me that the Bolsheviks established a feudal state. Probably because that never actually happened. If you want to accuse me of being ignorant of history, cut the bullsh*t. The Bolsheviks established state-capitalism, as Lenin pointed out:

 

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

 

"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

 

Who doesn't know how transition to feudal states happens? Well, I hope he's better at other branches of anthropology. Maybe he knows all there is to know about clay pots, or something. But it's a huge disappointment, that is. I would have lived happier if you haven't told me this, I'll be honest.

 

Feudal states never rose out of an anarchist society, so..

 

I think this will be my last post on the subject, as it's clear you can't even discuss this without being intellectually dishonest. Read some Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta, and then maybe we can have an honest, respectful discussion about anarchism.

 

Edited December 9, 2014 by make total destroy

[Dingdongs]

Can you just address what happens when one person in the anarchy gets too much resources and takes control? If you can answer that then perhaps you can expand further into anarchism's benefits

[make total destroy]

If all resources are held in common, the f*ck is the point in trying to get 'too much resources'? How would one feasibly 'take control'? Hoarding? Are they going to use their telekenitc powers to amass an army, and establish a new state? Would anyone even allow someone to 'take control'?

[a20characterusername]

If all resources are held in common, the f*ck is the point in trying to get 'too much resources'? How would one feasibly 'take control'? Hoarding? Are they going to use their telekenitc powers to amass an army, and establish a new state? Would anyone even allow someone to 'take control'?

Because people, most people anyway, are more than willing to trade liberty for security.

To think that everyone would just go along with everything being held 'in common' while not trying to one-up each other ignores human nature.

[make total destroy]

'Human nature' is socially-constructed. That is, human behavior is a response to the material conditions of their particular society. Given that competition is inherent to capitalism--and class society as a whole--it's no surprise humans within the context of the existing are generally self-serving, and intending to out-do one another. However, this social relationship--and society as a whole--would not exist without even the faintest amount of mutual aid and cooperation.

[MarshallRawR]

If to you Anarchy is chaos, then you got it wrong (from what I see from this thread's title and the article's title).

[Docfaustino]

What K^2 is saying is it's not chaos but it easily could be...perhaps the Bolsheviks are not a prime example but what's to say the wrong group of volunteer organizations don't manage a stranglehold on the populace the way government has before?

[Clem Fandango]

Why is that even relevant?

Because we're discussing whether or not the left is representative of the wider population?

 

 

 

Since you brought up Ukraine, why don't you explain to me what the fundamental distinction is between what you are suggesting and Veche?

The Veche wasn't built on internalised ideology? The people weren't universally educated? It pre-dates modern social science? It's a worthless parallel.

 

 

 

And again, I challenge you to find me an example of society that didn't go from stateless, to feudal, to some other form of government.

Again: nobody is defending general statelessness. Nobody is disagreeing with you that all societies start off stateless; why you think that's relevant is beyond me.

Can you just address what happens when one person in the anarchy gets too much resources and takes control?

I can't address that, no.

what's to say the wrong group of volunteer organizations don't manage a stranglehold on the populace the way government has before?

charities will establish a dictatorship why have no anarchist thinkers accounted for this

[Docfaustino]

I'm not an expert on anarchist theory and I have no illusions about that.

 

I simply wonder if the leftists of the forum are giving those who are actually on the left and active in our politics a chance.

 

Have you seen what Liz Warren is doing for America? Pushing a corrupt and bloated Dem party to the left. Attacking the revolving door between Wall Street, K Street and the Treasury just last week. Bernie Sanders does a lot too. Alan Grayson. Our family gave some money to Kristen Gillibrand. Yes the system might suck but it's not unopen to some reform. That's my only gripe.

 

---

 

Back on topic, in another shooting, Akai Gurley was killed "by accident" when a police bullet accidentally shot him in the heart while cops patrolled a Brooklyn project. This particular type of shooting is common and has happened before even in the same neighborhood. Obviously project patrol is probably like the toilet duty of police beats and at nighttime can get a little scary. After the officer shot Gurley, he immediately texted his police union rep for advice on how to handle the situation...

[GTA_stu]

If all resources are held in common, the f*ck is the point in trying to get 'too much resources'? How would one feasibly 'take control'? Hoarding? Are they going to use their telekenitc powers to amass an army, and establish a new state? Would anyone even allow someone to 'take control'?

 

But what is going to stop go stop a small organised group from taking over? Even if you manage to somehow arrive at some sort of utopian equilibrium with common ownership of everything, what is going to stop someone who wants more and who wants to gain power for themselves? If you create a massive power vacuum, what stops someone stepping into it and taking advantage?

[Clem Fandango]

But what is going to stop go stop a small organised group from taking over?

The much larger, better organised group we call "society." Anarchists don't oppose the monopoly on force.

 

 

 

power vacuum

THERE'S NO POWER VACUUM IF IT'S AN ORGANISED SYSTEM F*CKING HELL

Edited December 10, 2014 by Melchior

[GTA_stu]

So there'd be like an army or a militia or what? And how exactly is the system organised?

 

I realise this is turning into Q&A but my anarchist knowledge is pretty rudimentary and I'm not about to go read books n sh*t at 4 in the morning.

[Clem Fandango]

So there'd be like an army or a militia or what?

Well, historically anarchist societies have had military infrastructure.

 

 

 

And how exactly is the system organised?

With decentralised, direct democracy in all institutions whether economic, social or political. This is the literal definition of anarchism. Anarchism is not complete individualism as many believe, rather it's heavily organised collectivism. You couldn't just round up a bunch of people, convince them to help you make yourself king, and ride roughshod over the rest of society.

[a20characterusername]

Anarchism is not complete individualism as many believe, rather it's heavily organised collectivism.

And that right there is where I take issue with most other systems of governing. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well may be), but wouldn't direct democracy, even in a decentralized form, just be the same old "tyranny of the majority"? Wouldn't that be continuing the us versus them mentality, or am I misunderstanding something?

 

Side question: Do you consider voting to be an initiation of force?

[Clem Fandango]

wouldn't direct democracy, even in a decentralized form, just be the same old "tyranny of the majority"?

No, direct democracy is less about tallying up yays and nays and more about synthesis, compromise and accepting authority (authority in the sense of like, a mechanic is an authority on cars).

 

 

 

Do you consider voting to be an initiation of force?

What do you mean by this? Like if the population voted for an aggressive war or some such?

[a20characterusername]

 

No, direct democracy is less about tallying up yays and nays and more about synthesis, compromise and accepting authority (authority in the sense of like, a mechanic is an authority on cars).

 

Ah, I see. thanks for the clarification. I've read a bit on the subject (mostly concerning early Greeks and early U.S.) and saw a bit of it in action during Occupy Boston, but never delved too deep into the subject. Got any recommendations?

 

 

What do you mean by this? Like if the population voted for an aggressive war or some such?

 

That too, but for other things as well. Although since you explained that direct democracy isn't necessarily about tallying votes, this may not apply, so I'll apply it to our current system as an example instead-- let's say 51% of the population in my state wanted to ban public smoking or gay marriage or whatever else, would you see that 51% as using force to tell the other 49% what to do?

[Tchuck]

Since this is sort of turning into a Q&A:

 

-Would you still have a monetary system in an anarchist society? If not, how would trading of services be established and the division of labor?

-How would an anarchist regime be started in the current conditions of the world? Wouldn't it have to happen simultaneously in all countries or else other powerful countries might step in and ruin the process?

 

 

As for the topic of racial tensions and police, one thing I noticed is that in a portion of those cases which ends with the death of the suspect or perceived police brutality, the person calling 911 usually says that the suspect is armed with a gun and threatening everyone, even when the suspect is unarmed. In the case of the 12 year old who had a toy gun, the caller said that the suspect was armed, pointing the gun at everyone, and making threatening remarks and such. Now if I'm the police officer attending to that call, with only the call's information to go by, I'll assume highest level of danger, danger to my own life and of innocents standing by, and treat it all with the utmost care, already increasing my levels of tension and having to be prepared to face the hardest situations. Arriving at the scene, my thought is "he is armed and dangerous" and not "oh is that a toy gun?", and I'll treat any movement with much more possibility of danger than if the call had said "he's armed, but it might be a toy gun". Now, I'm not an American and I don't live in the US to know how the situation regarding race truly is, but isn't it possible that the problem isn't directly caused by a "racist police who hates black" but rather by a society still filled with racism and racial prejudice? And wouldn't the solution be instead of focusing on the police being "less racist", but rather working to change the society's perception of the others, to bring about better conditions of life to those who are slighted by everyone else, so that little by little these barriers might fall? To me, it seems that trying to get tougher on police because suspects have died in their hands due to some notions of "racial profiling" and what not would only be treating a symptom of a much deeper issue with American society in general.

[D- Ice]

Very informative discussion, and thanks for all the links to further sources.

However, I still have a lot to learn about Anarchism, so I certainly don't have an opinion on it.

Just to answer some points about direct democracy.

 

 

Anarchism is not complete individualism as many believe, rather it's heavily organised collectivism.

And that right there is where I take issue with most other systems of governing. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well may be), but wouldn't direct democracy, even in a decentralized form, just be the same old "tyranny of the majority"? Wouldn't that be continuing the us versus them mentality, or am I misunderstanding something?

 

Side question: Do you consider voting to be an initiation of force?

 

Regarding "tyranny of the majority", that is in fact the case in any democracy, and is accepted to be better than "tyranny of the minority". In any society, it is impossible to please everyone.

Direct democracy aims to allow people to vote on individual issues, rather than voting for the political party whose stance on said issues is most similar (but not identical) to their own. Thus, the system will theoretically be more representative of the people's views overall. So the "tyrannical majority" is larger than regular party-based democracies.

 

The "us versus them" mentality in politics is brought about by forcing people to choose from one of a number of political parties, with pre-set policies. In the purest form of direct democacy, political parties to represent the people won't really exist, as people will vote for each policy initiative individually. People who might vote the same as you on one policy initiative will likely vote differently from you on the next one, so no "teams" exist - only individuals.

Edited December 10, 2014 by D- Ice

[a20characterusername]

@D-Ice: Thanks for the further clarification, the idea of voting on individual issues rather than a bunch of prepackaged ones of a political party sounds far more appealing to me than what we currently have, as I strongly disagree with both major parties on many issues.

 

Agreed, it is impossible to please everyone, and that was what I was trying to get at before; that every system is flawed no matter how good it may sound on paper. As far as which 'tyranny' is preferable, majority or minority-- I suppose that depends on the intent and level of knowledge. I'd say an informed minority is better than an ill-informed/apathetic majority, but OTOH, the idea of a "ruling class" doesn't sit well with me.

 

My thing is that I see problems with EVERY system, so I just try to practice my own version of bottom-up governance by governing myself, if that makes any sense.

Edited December 10, 2014 by a20characterusername

[Dingdongs]

 

 

What does Obama's birth certificate have to do with who is speaking for the middle class? And I would beg to differ. Some Middle class voters who aren't too wise may go for the Tea Party backed candidates, but I would say it is mostly elderly voters and stay at home moms listening to Megyn Kelly all day because she's a hot 40 year old. In fact if you look at the elections, 2010 and 2014 when the Tea Party backed people won (actually 2014 saw a resurgence of more mainstream Republicans) it was years of extremely low voter participation. I think the 2014 election was 34% of registered voters turned up to the polls to cast vote. iwbth847 If we had in the US voting on weekends/voting over two days (some have proposed Sunday - Tuesday voting) I would bet you would see the real middle class vote.

f*cking hell "Americans don't want full Communism" I could have told you that. What they do want, is a massive change in the system, hence why they've been flocking towards the Tea Party with their revolutionary rhetoric.

 

Ask the average American to describe their ideal system, it'd be one with minimal wealth disparity; studies show that, when you ask Americans to describe the ideal wealth disparity between the top and the bottom, at most they'd have the richest guy in the country making three or four times as much as the poorest guy. The issue is that these are abstract ideals and most Americans have no class consciousness or any concept of being able to change anything on a large scale due to America's inherently undemocratic nature (when compared to other liberal democracies, even).

 

No, American's aren't itching for revolution, but to say the average middle class person deeply and consciously rejects Socialism is just completely ridiculous.

 

Again, not to be a dick, but you aren't an American. I don't get the sentiment that Americans want to see the entire system change. People here are different from Europeans and those that follow that style (i.e. Australia). When you poll Americans, by and large we want equality of opportunity, not equality of results like they do in Europe. We want everyone to be able to work hard for the same opportunities, and while that isn't the case in a lot of areas, that is what Americans want. I agree that the wealth disparity is too high and that the middle class are done with that. But they don't want socialism. They do reject socialism. In this country people believe in hard work and pulling themselves up by their boot straps. Look at the polling, look at writings from Americans. This is how people here are, agree with it or not. Americans want to see not necessarily higher tax rates for the wealthy, but they agree with that "no more tax exemptions for corporate jets" mantra. They want them to pay their fair share just like they have to. Someone making 50 million a year should have just as much of a burden as someone making 50,000, they do believe in the progressive income tax system. But Americans by and large, while they hold those thoughts I just listed, also really hate welfare. Your average middle class American will tell you that you know what, two years and that's it. We all fall on hard times, but if you can't figure your sh*t out in 2 years, you're done and you should be off unemployment benefits and off any form of welfare. While you're on that welfare, you should be drug tested and you should be required to work. If you can't find a job, then you do public works projects for the government or you go pick up trash and earn a wage. That's what Americans think by and large. They support the middle class and the idea of hard work. Not the idea that everyone should be entitled to money from the government, which is really money from those who are willing to work hard in the frist place.

 

 

 

This is a center-right country, and while you as someone in another country may think I'm a far right Fox News fan because of what I'm saying in this thread and the other thread, I'm really not. For most Americans I'm in the center and in some cases center left. People here by and large, compared with Europe/Canada/Australia/NZ , are way to the right politically. Just look at Obama. This is a guy who is a Democrat the American liberal party, but people abroad view him as a center right leader, because while solely looking at the American context he is on the left, when you zoom out he's really dead center if not leaing right.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Irviding