HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Anarchists? We don't hav...

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:22 AM

Anarchists? We don't have no steenking anarchists...

When is the last time this country faced a threat from anarchists? When Patti Hearst was kidnapped and when that judge was killed outside his courtroom, both by the SLA? Those 'folks' as the former pResident used to call them, we're hunted down and basically eradicated like the Anopheles mosquitoes that they were. I for one have not heard too much from the Anarchist wing of the population lately.

Now knowing these Rethugs as we do, it is much more likely that what they really meant to imply to the masseswhoareasses group was "Antichrist", since they can't help but intertwine politics and religion into a Gordian knot. The idiots certainly don't distinguish the difference. It is a form of Rethug punnery.

56 replies, 5017 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Anarchists? We don't have no steenking anarchists... (Original post)
PCIntern Aug 2012 OP
tama Aug 2012 #1
PCIntern Aug 2012 #2
tama Aug 2012 #6
TBF Aug 2012 #4
tama Aug 2012 #5
PCIntern Aug 2012 #8
tama Aug 2012 #12
PCIntern Aug 2012 #17
tama Aug 2012 #21
PCIntern Aug 2012 #22
tama Aug 2012 #25
coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #50
tama Aug 2012 #55
coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #16
TBF Aug 2012 #26
TBF Aug 2012 #3
tama Aug 2012 #7
TBF Aug 2012 #9
tama Aug 2012 #10
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #13
tama Aug 2012 #15
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #19
tama Aug 2012 #23
tama Aug 2012 #18
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #20
tama Aug 2012 #24
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #28
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #39
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #53
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #30
Puregonzo1188 Aug 2012 #44
MADem Aug 2012 #27
tama Aug 2012 #29
MADem Aug 2012 #34
tama Aug 2012 #38
MADem Aug 2012 #42
tama Aug 2012 #45
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #32
MADem Aug 2012 #33
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #36
MADem Aug 2012 #41
tama Aug 2012 #43
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #11
TBF Aug 2012 #14
Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #37
Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #31
tama Aug 2012 #47
BOG PERSON Aug 2012 #49
tama Aug 2012 #51
Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #52
onethatcares Aug 2012 #35
nadinbrzezinski Aug 2012 #40
limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #46
tama Aug 2012 #48
patrice Aug 2012 #54
tama Aug 2012 #56

Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:34 AM

1. When is the last time this country faced a threat from anarchists?

 

When OWS, which was and is anarchist initiative and practice, a non-hierarchic grass roots movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:35 AM

2. Threat?

I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:14 AM

6. Neither do I, as threat is something to be feared

 

But forces controlling police saw otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:45 AM

4. Occupy was a bourgeosie movement. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:10 AM

5. That too

 

A multitude of movements. Decentralized, non-hierarchic, leaderless multitude of movements = anarchic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:28 AM

8. We caused more disruption when Nixon mined Haiphong harbor

at my university than Occupy did in the cities in terms of keeping the peace. This was not anarchic, it was laughably ineffective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:08 AM

12. Damn hippies

 

morphed into Rainbow People. Not just "back in the 60's" and "young people today, no good for nuffin" people...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:12 AM

17. We were something back then...

Made our move impulsively and successfully. Some of us stood trial...lost, but eventually won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:30 AM

21. Nothing wrong with nostalgia

 

But if the purpose of the OP is ask where are the anarchists now (when you need them most?), first step is to take a look in the mirror.

No doubt there are many anarchists doing their thing in US as we speak, mostly below the media visibility, but comparison to countries like Greece and Spain is also worth notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:33 AM

22. It isn't...

I think my point was that there are no lefty anarchists here...and that's ok with me. We need effective lefty legitimate movement instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #22)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:54 AM

25. "Here' referring to US, not just DU, I assume

 

The point is of course factually wrong, there are lefty anarchists also on DU and much more in US generally.

So I take you don't consider Democratic Party "effective lefty legitimate movement" but expressing need for one on DU during election campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:48 PM

50. The intellectual roots of Occupy stem from anarchism (David Graeber and

 

Chris Hedges, to name but two). Comparing the anti-war movement of the 60s with the Occupy movement of 2011 seems to me a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Still, your disruptions on campus were about as effective in ending our involvement in the Vietnam War as Occupy's were in creating changes in the distribution and concentration of wealth. (By the time Nixon mined Haiphong Harbor, for example, the policy of 'Vietnamization' was well under way.)

I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who dares to 'disturb the universe' (to quote T.S. Eliot) and that applies to the 60s anti-war movement and to Occupy. But when it comes to 'effective,' I've got to call 'em as I see 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:51 PM

55. Seattle and anti-war

 

The great victory of Seattle (as said, WTO not going anywhere since that) and the initiative momentum it gave to the anticapitalist movement took nothing less than 9/11 and neocon + third way war campaign to turn attention of masses to reactionary and futile; frustrated and defeatist anti-war demonstrations. TPTB created image of external threat to divert attention of people from real issues, age old trick but once again succesful for anticapitalist movement to lose initiative and momentum. That is the most important lesson of anti-war movement of 60's (after the great victories, initiative and momentum of Civil Rights etc. movements) and of those against Bush Wars. To quote Bush: "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't git fooled again."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:07 AM

16. Grammar Nazi (French) here: 'bourgeoisie' is a noun. Stylistically better to say

 

'bourgeois' (adjective) when modifying 'movement'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:54 AM

26. ok :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:45 AM

3. A primer - leftists were most notably purged

during 1919-1920 The Palmer Raids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

and the McCarthy years 1950-54 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

We've had decades without a solid left, union membership is down to 10-12%. The CPUSA (Communist Party USA) has endorsed Obama for president.

There is no strong leftist presence in this country, unfortunately, and that is why we are seeing the poor/working/middle class get pummeled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:23 AM

7. So whose left of left?

 

Anarchists don't usually consider themselves left - any part of the right-left axis. They are part of anti-capitalist fronts, together with what is left of the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:36 AM

9. You're going to have to clarify -

I have no idea what you are talking about.

How "anarchists" see themselves is going to be subjective, but by most objective measures they are considered leftist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:59 AM

10. It's not just one dimensional

 

In two dimensional analysis (e.g. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index) anarchists locate on the social libertarian side of the vertical axis, not on the authoritarian side. Looking from the social libertarian bottom of the chart, authoritarian left can be just as bad as authoritarian right.

DU as whole is located in the lower left corner, but in that corner majority more to the left than to the bottom of social libertarianism/anarchism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:39 AM

13. that's why anarchists wind up taking the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat

all the while claiming to represent some invisible faction of the working class. even tho they don't have any affiliated unions (conveniently, they oppose unionism), no organized expression for their political aims (conveniently, they oppose hierarchy), no programme for *after the revolution*. because the freedom of civil society trumps everything. and only the bourgeoisie guarantees this (in theory)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:04 AM

15. Anarcho-syndicalism

 

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism:
"The anarcho-syndicalist orientation of many early American labour unions arguably played an important role in the formation of the American political spectrum, most significantly of the Industrial Workers of the World"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_General_del_Trabajo:
"As the largest anarchist trade union in the world, the CGT has a membership of approximately 60,000 people, while representing around 2 million workers through industrial committees and collective bargaining. It is especially strong today in Catalonia, where historically, anarchism had strong support. For historical reasons, the CGT is also a main player in the Spanish state railways, RENFE. It is also part of the industrial committee of SEAT, the Spanish car manufacturer and the largest company in Catalonia. Nonetheless, the CGT does not hold the majority in any important industrial committee at this moment. The CGT has been known to call for industrial action, without support of any other unions. Sometimes it had refused to accept collective bargaining agreements negotiated by other trade unions, unless these have been appoved by general secret ballots."

Most famous contemporary American anarcho-syndicalist is of course Chomsky.

***

And as for "bourgeoisie against the proletariat", if you really want to go into history of Russian Revolution or Spanish Civil War and betrayals of people by Communist Party, be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:15 AM

19. anarchists would be wise to heed the saying

"when you point one finger, three point back at you". but they never do. blaming everybody but themselves for their isolation and failures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:40 AM

23. Isolation?

 

To me OWS showed anything but isolation, nationally and internationally. And as for anarchist self-criticism, it's doing quite fine, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:12 AM

18. I must say

 

I find your claims interesting - not in regard to their truth value, but what they tell about contemporary American society. Where do the opinions you expressed originate from, where did you hear what you are repeating here?

The meme "anarchists taking the side of the bourgeoisie" is especially interesting as you are not the only one repeating that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:17 AM

20. i get my opinions from the same place every american political poseur gets their opinions

from the internet and chomsky books

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:45 AM

24. Weird

 

If you read Chomsky, how can you claim that anarchists "don't have any affiliated unions (conveniently, they oppose unionism)"?

Sure, there are many strains of anarchism also in US, one going back to Thoreau and associated today with Zerzan (anarcho-primitivism) has got also lot of attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:39 PM

28. "how can you claim anarchists 'don't have any affiliated unions'?"

because i read the news? and unionizing a Starbucks probably doesn't do much good for the colombian child slave on the coffee plantation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:49 PM

39. Your claim is demonstrably false, both historically and currently.

 

The IWW is not big, but still exists and is still organizing.

http://www.iww.org/

Then all you're left with is your snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #39)


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:16 PM

30. They oppose unionism? Ever heard of the IWW?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:28 PM

44. Or the CNT for that matter which before the Civil War was the largest union in Spain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:34 PM

27. Oh, I dunno about that....

I'd say most of 'em are hell raisers to some degree, think that they're cool because they're out of the mainstream, but not at all left of center, no, no, not at all...they don't hew to any wing of government, they want to trash government, not elect "progressives" or "lefties."

Here's a bunch of bozos who have a right wing-ish philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:05 PM

29. From your link

 

"In the United States, only a few web sites have been established but there has been a trend towards a steady increase.[8] National-Anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals, led by Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), based in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a couple of other groups in Northern California and Idaho."

"On 8 September 2007 in Sydney, Australia, the anti-globalization movement mobilized against neoliberal economic policies by opposing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. During the street protests, National-Anarchists infiltrated the left-anarchist black bloc but the police had to protect them from being expelled by irate activists.["

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:27 PM

34. I never suggested they were popular, or even a substantial "movement."

Just that they existed, and this is one quirky example.

That Google will give you more anarchists of the "rightwing" flavor...if you do a bit of digging.

I have no interest in "defending" these assclowns, I hope I have made that entirely clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:48 PM

38. I didn't suggest

 

you suggested so. Interesting find, good to know any case, so thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:04 PM

42. We're good...I know some times, because of the limits of the written word, I've often

been told that I support a concept simply for pointing out the other side of the argument! I have no interest in associating myself with that bunch...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #42)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:32 PM

45. Localism vs nationalism

 

That bunch was interesting because there was some common ground with "primitivist" Green anarchism (Zerzan etc.), but also revealed what the real difference is. Fascist nationalism of that bunch is "pure" and closed, where as the philosophy and practice - such as ecovillages - of primitivist/neotribalist versions of anarchic localism are "impure" and open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:22 PM

32. National Anarchism is to anarchism what National Socialism was to socialism.

 

Tarring anarchism like that is like bizarro world Glenn Beckism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:24 PM

33. Well, we can play those word games all day.

I think, quite bluntly, it's a bit hard to "tar" anarchism, but that's just me.

I'd say Glenn Beck is closer to the anarchist mindset than most Democrats I pal around with, but hey, whatever, Comrade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:40 PM

36. You must have a curious definition of anarchism.

 

Anarchism is one of Beck's favorite boogie men. Just Google "Glenn Beck anarchism" and you'll see.

For me, and I think this is a fairly common definition, anarchism is a left-wing, radically democratic, anti-statist and anti-corporate movement. You can see why that would concern Beck.

Saying "Glenn Beck is closer to the anarchist mindset" is startlingly devoid of any political content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:56 PM

41. Like I said, we can play those word games all day.

I think Glenn Beck is what he purports to fear!

People who don't like government are anarchists, to my mind. All the shit people add on to "qualify" it and make it palatable within their "set" of buddies -- that's just window dressing and excuse-making to make the concept appeal to a specified target audience. The right-wingnut version is less popular, sure, but it exists. It's like Baskin-Robbins, a ton of flavors.

Wiki ain't controlling, but they do a fair job of covering the waterfront, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anyone with a low regard for government, and with any sort of "bent" be it left or right, can find a home in an anarchist philosophy--even to the extent of eschewing "political" content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:16 PM

43. FBI definition

 

"Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority. Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means."
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/anarchist_111610

FBI article is, of course, about "anarchist extremism", one of the four main threats of "domestic terrorism", others being:
- Sovereign citizen extremist threat
- Lone offender threat
- Eco-terrorist and animal rights extremist threats

Article continues:
"For today’s generation of American anarchist extremists, the rioting that disrupted the 1999 World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle is the standard by which they measure “success”—it resulted in millions of dollars in property damage and economic loss and injuries to hundreds of law enforcement officers and bystanders. But fortunately, they haven’t been able to duplicate what happened in Seattle…which may be a combination of the improved preparations of law enforcement as well as the disorganization of the movement."

The success of "anarchist extremism" (and of course representatives of many other political philosophies were also present) of Seattle was not "millions of dollars in property damage" etc., but that WTO process was interrupted and has been stagnated ever since, which was the purpose of the action.

OK, good enough, in that comparison the "standard of success" was not repeated by OWS, Wall Street is still corrupting politics and destroying our lives as before. That would have been indeed BIG, given that those who made the initiative were totally amazed by what it turned into, changing the national discourse and revealing how fed up so many people were with the system and how ready for radical changes. If anyone wonders why national security machines are targeting anarchists and naming them public enemy number one, that's why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:03 AM

11. leftists have faced much more severe repression in other countries

and still managed to recover. maybe the US left lost their mojo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:52 AM

14. Sure - no doubt about that

just putting up the links for those who are interested. Personally I think more people are towards the left than many on this website would realize. As conditions worsen we will see them act. The only question is whether the Christian fascists will be stronger. A lot of parallels with Greece ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:41 PM

37. I take it you are not of the left?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:21 PM

31. British India once faced a threat from a noted Anarchist...his name was Gandhi.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #31)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:38 PM

47. Wise man:

 

"The way to achieve such a state of total nonviolence (ahimsa) was changing of the people's minds rather than changing the state which governs people. Self-governance (swaraj) is the principle behind his theory of satyagraha. This swaraj starts from the individual, then moves outward to the village level, and then to the national level; the basic principle is the moral autonomy of the individual is above all other considerations."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:46 PM

49. what a pious little twerp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:53 PM

51. Bad day?

 

Or just your personality?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:53 PM

52. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:32 PM

35. it was reported the FBI discovered an anarchist

video tape ala OBL telling others how to make secret weapon pens and blow up the bridges into Tampa during the rnc.

the report was courtesy of baynews9 and by the time I got to the teevee to see it, it was a goner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:52 PM

40. My guess is that RED lost it's mojo

 



I noticed that one too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:35 PM

46. Was there a news story that started this or what happened?

I haven't been following the news closely. What is this about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #46)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:41 PM

48. There been lately news stories

 

about police doing house searches and looking for anarchist literature as incriminating evidence, as well as claims about anarchist threats to party conventions. But can't say if OP had those in mind when posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:12 PM

54. I know several "anarchists". Their closest other associates, around here, are Libertarians. There

are several varieties of Libertarians, one of which, the Liberal Libertarian, is one of the ways in which Noam Chomsky self-identifies.

There are at least a few varieties of "anarchists". I am not certain what the over-lap is between "anarchists", nor what over-lap they have in common with Libertarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #54)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:07 PM

56. At the demostration that launched Occupy Turku, Finland

 

I rw libertarian wanted to give me their party leaflet. His colleague whom I had exchanged few words in a preliminary meeting said that no use giving that guy (me) a leaflet, he's anarchist.

Point is, nope, rw libertarians are not closest associates of anarchists, we don't mingle. Prototypical anarchists live in squats tending gardens growing mostly Mary Jane and attend punk concerts drinking moon shine, money is weird concept and few ever seen any. Prototypical rw libertarians are rich white corporate people living in MacMansions, listening cool jazz and sipping expensive Chardonney while perusing stock market charts at MacIntosh screen.

At least here in Finland closest associates of rw libertarians are greens and conservatives. There was a rw libertarian party that made a short entrance to parliament, then lost all seats and broke down. Half went to main conservative party and other half to Green party. In US, as all know, rw libertarians (paulites as they are now often called) associate with Republican party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread