Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[sandinista]

A pox on the extremes, say I!

As do I.

[JimC]

A pox on the extremes, say I!

As do I.

Only our definitions of the extremes may be somewhat different...

[Coito ergo sum]

There's a time and a place for civil disobedience. What was the American Revolution but civil disobedience on a massive scale? What brought the hated poll tax down in the UK? The riots.

If the OWSers were advancing high ideals, independence from a tyrannical non-representative government, confiscatory taxation, military quartering of soldiers in citizens' homes, denials of due process, denials of fair trials, involuntary impressment into military service, and other such things, then perhaps the majority of people would stand with them, and the government would hopefully relent.

As it stands, I've not heard anything OWS is advocating that makes a damn bit of sense. Most of the time, the folks that support them can't even articulate what the OWS movement is actually standing for, because it's a shell game. They hide behind the "nobody runs the movement, and therefore there are as many reasons for it as there are people in the movement," type nonsense. It basically just becomes a griping mob, mainly asking for free stuff. To compare it to the American Revolution is like comparing the fight the NVA in Vietnam to the fight against the Nazis in WW2.

I didn't compare the OWS movement to the American Revolution.

Then what was your point for mentioning it?

The discussion was about civil disobedience of the OWS movement. You said there was a time and a place for it, and gave two examples which, presumably, were times and places for it. My point was that the OWS movement isn't a time and place for it, because it's not like the two examples you gave.

[Seth]

Prevailing views don't equate with correct views of course.

Typical socialist elitist arrogance.

Views are formed and sculpted, of course, most people understand this.

Most people also understand that just because some socialist doesn't like the prevailing view it doesn't mean the view is incorrect.

You think you know better than the majority what's right for society and you're willing to impose your political ideology on them by force.

Like the US doesn't impose it's political ideology by force. Of course they do.

No, we don't. We intervene to prevent genocide, war, tyranny and despotism, both dictatorial and socialistic, and to provide opportunity for people to make free choices for themselves through free and fair democratic elections so they can achieve stable representative governments rather than socialist/communist tyrannies where socialist ideology is imposed by force, often followed by extermination of dissidents.

Your saying that like it's something linked with socialism.

No, I'm saying that socialism is an inherently evil political ideology that is ALWAYS imposed by force upon people who have no interest whatsoever in participating in it. The political, social and physical coercion of socialism is a fundamental and inseperable aspect of the ideology, because whenever someone does not want to give according to what the State determines is his "ability," or wants to earn more than the state deems is his "need," the state will take from him what is his by right and will force him to work for the benefit of others against his will using whatever force is necessary, up to and including exterminating him if he shows counterrevolutionary reactionary tendencies.

Besides that, the obvious, political ideologies are more often imposed by the use of propaganda. The statement has nothing to do with elitism. Besides all the above, you think that prevailing views equal correct views? I take it you're a religious person than?

Sure it does, it's a demonstration of the socialist mindset that those who object to socialism are simply in error and that socialism is unquestionably the only "correct" political ideology on earth. And no, I don't, and no, I'm not.

Enough so that if it can't be stamped out and marginalized into ineffectiveness, force is justified in preventing it from achieving political power.

Now who's advocating using force? Can you not keep it straight even within the same post?

Of course I'm advocating the use of force to extirpate socialism and communism from the face of the earth. This is because they, and the Marxist ideology from which both flow, are inherently evil sociopolitcal ideologies that have murdered a hundred million people in the last century alone and therefore must be eliminated with extreme prejudice whenever and wherever they crop up, for the protection and survival of mankind and the preservation of liberty, freedom and peace worldwide.

You are falsely trying to impute moral equivalence to the predatory and immoral force used by socialism to allow it's cancerous self to persist with the righteous and necessary force used by free people in destroying the pernicious cancer that eats away at the rights and safety of free people everywhere that is socialism.

Your argument is just as ignorant as impugning the surgeon who cuts away cancerous lung tissue to save the life of the patient by arguing that the cancer cells have a right to live and therefore should be left to invade the body without opposition.

Socialism is evil and must be destroyed. Whatever force is required to achieve this objective is just as righteous and moral as the force used to destroy Nazism in WWII.

[aspire1670]

We intervene to prevent genocide, war, tyranny and despotism, both dictatorial and socialistic, and to provide opportunity for people to make free choices for themselves through free and fair democratic elections so they can achieve stable representative governments rather than socialist/communist tyrannies where socialist ideology is imposed by force, often followed by extermination of dissidents..

LOL at the troll fail. C'mon Seth, you can do much better than this.

[sandinista]

We intervene to prevent genocide, war, tyranny and despotism, both dictatorial and socialistic, and to provide opportunity for people to make free choices for themselves through free and fair democratic elections so they can achieve stable representative governments rather than socialist/communist tyrannies where socialist ideology is imposed by force, often followed by extermination of dissidents..

LOL at the troll fail. C'mon Seth, you can do much better than this.

Can he...really? I doubt that very much.

[Warren Dew]

Again, we have the extremes. Some seem to regard any criticism of the current (read American) system of politics and economics as treason, and that any suggestion that a serious attempt be made to reign in the clear excesses of capitalism and the big money end of town is the end of civilisation as we know it.

I think there are major differences of opinion on whether that's the current American system:

[Warren Dew]

A pox on the extremes, say I!

As do I.

Out of curiousity, what do you see as the opposite extreme to Seth? (I'm assuming you don't see Seth as centrist.)

[sandinista]

A pox on the extremes, say I!

As do I.

Out of curiousity, what do you see as the opposite extreme to Seth? (I'm assuming you don't see Seth as centrist.)

I don't agree with any of the "left/right/center" pigeon holing. It's all BS, made up, worthless. Everyone has a different definition depending on their political beliefs. I see capitalist neo liberalism as extremist, but not as left/right or center.

[JimC]

Extremes involve people who think violence is a legitimate method to achieve a political solution, or that current political systems need to be altered by non-democratic means...

[Warren Dew]

Extremes involve people who think violence is a legitimate method to achieve a political solution, or that current political systems need to be altered by non-democratic means...

Nah. Extremes involve people who deny the divine right of kings, and think that everyone should have a voice in government!

[sandinista]

Extremes involve people who think violence is a legitimate method to achieve a political solution, or that current political systems need to be altered by non-democratic means...

That's very vague and full of assumptions. Violence will always be used by a state if it thinks it's power is at risk. As for "non-democratic" means, that could mean anything. How do you define "democracy"? By your definition any and all political systems are extreme.

[Seth]

Extremes involve people who think violence is a legitimate method to achieve a political solution, or that current political systems need to be altered by non-democratic means...

Defending against Communist/Socialist tyranny using violence is not a "political solution" it's a necessary evil caused by the insidious and evil actions of Marxists whose entire ideology and existence is unapologetically founded upon using violence as a political solution, as demonstrated by Stalin and Mao and the hundred million they murdered in the name of Marxism, and as explicitly stated by Marx himself in the Communist Manifesto.

When "current political systems" consist of Marxist tyrannies that enslave entire populations to the will of the Marxist elite, "democratic means" won't work because Marxism is all about physically destroying anyone who exhibits counterrevolutionary and reactionary behavior before they have a chance to become organized enough to "democratically" vote on anything.

Therefore, eliminating the Marxist elite is the first step in restoring liberty and freedom to the oppressed and enslaved proletariat, which gives them the freedom to build a democratic society based on respect for individual rights. This is necessary because the Marxist elite are fundamentally evil and incapable of changing their ideological bent, and will enslave people whenever they have the opportunity and never will change their ways. They are unsalvagable despots.

[Clinton Huxley]

There's a time and a place for civil disobedience. What was the American Revolution but civil disobedience on a massive scale? What brought the hated poll tax down in the UK? The riots.

If the OWSers were advancing high ideals, independence from a tyrannical non-representative government, confiscatory taxation, military quartering of soldiers in citizens' homes, denials of due process, denials of fair trials, involuntary impressment into military service, and other such things, then perhaps the majority of people would stand with them, and the government would hopefully relent.

As it stands, I've not heard anything OWS is advocating that makes a damn bit of sense. Most of the time, the folks that support them can't even articulate what the OWS movement is actually standing for, because it's a shell game. They hide behind the "nobody runs the movement, and therefore there are as many reasons for it as there are people in the movement," type nonsense. It basically just becomes a griping mob, mainly asking for free stuff. To compare it to the American Revolution is like comparing the fight the NVA in Vietnam to the fight against the Nazis in WW2.

I didn't compare the OWS movement to the American Revolution.

Then what was your point for mentioning it?

The discussion was about civil disobedience of the OWS movement. You said there was a time and a place for it, and gave two examples which, presumably, were times and places for it. My point was that the OWS movement isn't a time and place for it, because it's not like the two examples you gave.

It doesn't have to be exactly like the examples I gave to be a time and place for it. Not that I'm saying it is.

[JimC]

Extremes involve people who think violence is a legitimate method to achieve a political solution, or that current political systems need to be altered by non-democratic means...

Defending against Communist/Socialist tyranny using violence is not a "political solution" it's a necessary evil caused by the insidious and evil actions of Marxists whose entire ideology and existence is unapologetically founded upon using violence as a political solution, as demonstrated by Stalin and Mao and the hundred million they murdered in the name of Marxism, and as explicitly stated by Marx himself in the Communist Manifesto.

When "current political systems" consist of Marxist tyrannies that enslave entire populations to the will of the Marxist elite, "democratic means" won't work because Marxism is all about physically destroying anyone who exhibits counterrevolutionary and reactionary behavior before they have a chance to become organized enough to "democratically" vote on anything.

Therefore, eliminating the Marxist elite is the first step in restoring liberty and freedom to the oppressed and enslaved proletariat, which gives them the freedom to build a democratic society based on respect for individual rights. This is necessary because the Marxist elite are fundamentally evil and incapable of changing their ideological bent, and will enslave people whenever they have the opportunity and never will change their ways. They are unsalvagable despots.

Sandinista could use precisely the same logic to demand the elimination of evil capitalists.

What part of "a pox on both your houses" don't you understand?