What is a "radical left anarchist?"

[RKMBrown]

If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Like I said, you're not going to get power to be relinquished voluntarily. It doesn't work that way.

We got them to relinquish prohibition. I suppose you could argue we had to fight for it.

I don't mind fighting for liberty. Seems like a fight worth fighting for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

First of all OWS did not call themselves anarchists, most were serious people who saw the abuse of 'wall street' and the immoral practices of insurance companies, banks and real estate brokers.

The few and violent who destroyed property, looted and defecated on the streets corrupted the legitimate and appropriate response of responsible and informed citizens to protest the egregious practices of so called Masters of the Universe.

To answer your troll anarchists can be far right or far left, persons who do not abide by or support the rule of law and take the law into their own hands. The Unabomber, the Olympic Bomber, the killer of Dr. Tiller and those mobs which wreck havoc wherever and whenever the WTO meet.

Finally wanting the Government to regulate business and industry is not Socialism nor is it Fascism. You really need to do some research before you troll. It might give you some credibility.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Like I said, you're not going to get power to be relinquished voluntarily. It doesn't work that way.

We got them to relinquish prohibition. I suppose you could argue we had to fight for it.

I don't mind fighting for liberty. Seems like a fight worth fighting for.

OK. but it's not going to be a fight that can be won through the channels of the power authority.

 

[RKMBrown]

If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Like I said, you're not going to get power to be relinquished voluntarily. It doesn't work that way.

We got them to relinquish prohibition. I suppose you could argue we had to fight for it.

I don't mind fighting for liberty. Seems like a fight worth fighting for.

OK. but it's not going to be a fight that can be won through the channels of the power authority.

Agreed. Though putting a rebellious voice in the WH couldn't hurt to bring the eduction to the masses regarding what must be done. If the weather underground can put a mole in the WH maybe we can too.

 

[kaz]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

I suspect these people were alluding to Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndacalism both of which are sometimes referenced as left wing anarchism.

You're probably right in that this is the closest you could articulate what they are thinking, though I don't think they are lucid enough on what they want that they could articulate anything rational.

Though the idea in anarcho-communism that a State with ubiquitous power would ever disolve itself to the people is preposterous and that anarcho-syndacalism would lead to anything other than unions being anything other than government by mafia equally so.

 

[kaz]

most were serious people who saw the abuse of 'wall street' and the immoral practices of insurance companies, banks and real estate brokers

You live in a fantasy world...

 

[Wry Catcher]

most were serious people who saw the abuse of 'wall street' and the immoral practices of insurance companies, banks and real estate brokers

You live in a fantasy world...

A glib idiotgram. Is CrusaderFrank your mentor?

BTW, taking a sentence out of context is dishonest. Not that I expect honesty from you, but others should be apprised.

 

[kaz]

A society without government must be grounded in the fundamentals of human action. That is, slef ownership, liberty and private property. Anarcho-capitalists belive that a society sans government can exist only based upon contracts. And that private enterprise can arbitrate dispute of contracts.

Which is where they fall apart. You can't have contracts with any meaning without private property to base those contracts, and you can't have private property without general recognition of property rights. That general agreement is government. And you can't have resolution of contract disputes without general recognition of the outcome of those disputes, and that is once again government.

Capitalism is based on principles which can only be provided by government. And you know I'm a libertarian, so don't start saying arguments that apply to things that you know I don't believe, like referring to the atrocities committed by our current government. And I challenge anyone to take me on they love capitalism more than I do. I believe in it and want it to work. I recognize how critical property rights are to capitalism. It is based on property rights because every economic contract involves trading something of economic value for another. Capitalism is just a term for economic freedom. Itself it should be free of government. You can't trade money for a house and property when competing private interests claim differing ownership of those rights.

People make the disconnect with anarchy because they believe that humans are inherently evil.

That's nonsense. We recognize there is evil. And the masses are sheep who are manipulative by evil. That is very different from that people are inherently evil. Just look all through history at Nazi Germany, the Bolsheviks and the Democratic party at what a small number of evil people can do manipulating a large number of mindless followers.

 

[NightFox]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

I suspect these people were alluding to Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndacalism both of which are sometimes referenced as left wing anarchism.

You're probably right in that this is the closest you could articulate what they are thinking, though I don't think they are lucid enough on what they want that they could articulate anything rational.

Though the idea in anarcho-communism that a State with ubiquitous power would ever disolve itself to the people is preposterous and that anarcho-syndacalism would lead to anything other than unions being anything other than government by mafia equally so.

Just a minor point Kaz, from my understanding Anarcho-Communists believe that no state with "ubiquitous power" would ever do that, which is why they reject the Marxist idea of evolution to a stateless society (Capitalism->Socialism->Communism, led by a vanguard communist party), they want to skip the whole socialism step to avoid having an all powerful state to contend with.

It's what differentiates Anarcho-Communism from "run of the mill" Marx derived Communism.

 

[kaz]

most were serious people who saw the abuse of 'wall street' and the immoral practices of insurance companies, banks and real estate brokers

You live in a fantasy world...

A glib idiotgram. Is CrusaderFrank your mentor?

BTW, taking a sentence out of context is dishonest. Not that I expect honesty from you, but others should be apprised.

How is it out of context?

 

[NightFox]

We got them to relinquish prohibition. I suppose you could argue we had to fight for it.

I don't mind fighting for liberty. Seems like a fight worth fighting for.

OK. but it's not going to be a fight that can be won through the channels of the power authority.

Agreed. Though putting a rebellious voice in the WH couldn't hurt to bring the eduction to the masses regarding what must be done. If the weather underground can put a mole in the WH maybe we can too.

What sort of "rebellious voice" would you expect to get in the White House? One that's going to "rebel" against his/her own power? Given the amount of ego and dishonesty it takes nowadays to get to the White House in the first place one would think that this is a near impossibility, if you're not already a statist stooge when you get to the White House door you'll be one after spending a couple of weeks inside.

I give you an A+ for optimism though.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You live in a fantasy world...

A glib idiotgram. Is CrusaderFrank your mentor?

BTW, taking a sentence out of context is dishonest. Not that I expect honesty from you, but others should be apprised.

How is it out of context?

My entire post is the context for my opinion. Using one sentence or phrase as stand alone evidence is dishonest, as you very well know. It's little different than those who posted over and over and over one photo of someone defecating in the street hoping such behavior characterizes the entire OWS movement.

Being dishonest is pretty good evidence to support a conclusion you don't have any evidence to deny my observation, and thus default to attacking my person and not my argument. It's an example of about everything you post. Dishonest, opinionated without real probative evidence and always framed by dogma unexamined.

 

[kaz]

A glib idiotgram. Is CrusaderFrank your mentor?

BTW, taking a sentence out of context is dishonest. Not that I expect honesty from you, but others should be apprised.

How is it out of context?

My entire post is the context for my opinion. Using one sentence or phrase as stand alone evidence is dishonest, as you very well know. It's little different than those who posted over and over and over one photo of someone defecating in the street hoping such behavior characterizes the entire OWS movement.

Being dishonest is pretty good evidence to support a conclusion you don't have any evidence to deny my observation, and thus default to attacking my person and not my argument. It's an example of about everything you post. Dishonest, opinionated without real probative evidence and always framed by dogma unexamined.

I was addressing your point that they are "mostly reasonable people." Since you say that is "dishonest" and "out of context" that can only be so if you're saying you do not think they are mostly reasonable people and the rest of the text would have shown that, which it didn't.

But I'll give you a chance. So, you're saying you don't stand by that they are mostly reasonable people? If so, my apologies even though the rest of your post didn't indicate you think that.

If that is not what you are saying, this whole rant is you being an ass.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Radical left anarchist = dope smoking 20 year old living in mom's basement.
Seriously people, there really is no need to over analyze a group of idiots.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Which is where they fall apart. You can't have contracts with any meaning without private property to base those contracts, and you can't have private property without general recognition of property rights.

Hence why anarcho-capitalists are in strong favor of private property. "General recognition" of such rights, already exists fundamentally in human action. The problem occurs when people attempt to infringe upon said rights. That doesn't mean there isn't already a "general recognition". it's there, but there are always those who will attempt to take things by force. That has littel or nothing to do with government. In our system, you dont own the property you purchase, the government does. You merely lease it from them and call it ownership. At any time, whether from failure to pay rent, or by means of eminent domain, "your" property can be seized.

And you can't have resolution of contract disputes without general recognition of the outcome of those disputes, and that is once again government.

general recognition again, is becoming a windfall for you. Private enterprise can most certainly resolve such disputes. The difference you are referring to, and using "general recognition as term is its stead, is the ability to apply force against someone who doesn't want to adhere to the outcomes of a such a dispute. And right then, we're back to where we started regarding government's monopoly on the use of force and violence. Where it grows and festers into a giant leviathan that ultimately infringes upon the individuals rights int eh end. So it's a moot point.

Capitalism is based on principles which can only be provided by government.

Hardly. Economic freedom is noty dependent upon a landlord and asset advisor that essentially treats all the property under a domain as its own. That's not economic freedom what-so-ever.

You can't trade money for a house and property when competing private interests claim differing ownership of those rights.

Of course not. And thats why contracts are a driving force of ownership. Disuptes that arise from such contracts can be dealt with sans a government. It's happened in the passed. Although it's never allowed to work (which is another conversation entirely).

 

[Wry Catcher]

How is it out of context?

My entire post is the context for my opinion. Using one sentence or phrase as stand alone evidence is dishonest, as you very well know. It's little different than those who posted over and over and over one photo of someone defecating in the street hoping such behavior characterizes the entire OWS movement.

Being dishonest is pretty good evidence to support a conclusion you don't have any evidence to deny my observation, and thus default to attacking my person and not my argument. It's an example of about everything you post. Dishonest, opinionated without real probative evidence and always framed by dogma unexamined.

I was addressing your point that they are "mostly reasonable people." Since you say that is "dishonest" and "out of context" that can only be so if you're saying you do not think they are mostly reasonable people and the rest of the text would have shown that, which it didn't.

But I'll give you a chance. So, you're saying you don't stand by that they are mostly reasonable people? If so, my apologies even though the rest of your post didn't indicate you think that.

If that is not what you are saying, this whole rant is you being an ass.

I watched the news of the OWS protests and listened to the leaders. I did not rely on one photograph or one region or city to draw the conclusion that the movement began as a responsible protest. Sadly the news media focused on the radical left, the socialist worker's party and the street people who decided the movement gave them carte blanche to loot businesses and engage in vandalism.

To deny that the financial services industry, real estate brokers and bankers didn't contribute to the near collapse of our economy through greed is fantasy, and to characterize everyone who believes AIG, Lehman Brothers, et al are not culpable is absurd. OWS was hijacked and those who focused on the few anarchists and excuse the suits are a great part of the problem. Calling me an ass is childish and once again provides evidence that your software filters out anything which conflicts with the dogma you hold as absolute truth.

 

[kaz]

To deny that the financial services industry, real estate brokers and bankers didn't contribute to the near collapse of our economy through greed is fantasy

Well, since you chose for yourself the incredibly low standard that if they contributed anything to it at all in any way then anyone who disagrees with you is in "fantasy," even a hard core capitalist like me agrees with you. They were players in the market, of course they share some responsibility. But you just mocked no one because you cast the net of no one. No one believes their culpability is zero.

The primary culprits though where politicians, and they were the ones driven by greed. The market was seeking profit, which is earning their money and not greed. The politicians wanted to profit on someone else's money, which is clearly greed. It was government policies started by Clinton and continued by W that led the market to collapse. Only government can subvert capitalism because only government can warp markets through force. Capitalists in capitalism have to compete.

OWS was hijacked and those who focused on the few anarchists and excuse the suits are a great part of the problem. Calling me an ass is childish and once again provides evidence that your software filters out anything which conflicts with the dogma you hold as absolute truth.

I called you an ass for whining about accurately quoting you for something you stand by. That you want the whole quote in every quote is preposterous. Stop being an ass.