Occupy Indianapolis

[UncleMike]

Good grief.

Do you have the slightest idea what "anarchy" means?

Yup!!
According to one of the founders of modern Anarchism.
Anarchism is "stateless socialism."
~ Michael Bakunin

Socialists have advocated anarchy for over a century as the best means of bringing down the Capitalist System.
The "protesters" are the "Useful Idiots" that the founders of Socialist Communism referred to.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Are they anarchists or authoritarians? ...

IMO , what "they" are is a whole bunch of reasons to up the voting age to at least 30 years old .

This way "they" will actually have some life experience and will better understand the consequences of their actions .

 

[UncleMike]

Are they anarchists or authoritarians? They can't be both, you know...

Karl Marx was.
Lenin was.
Trotsky was.
Stalin was.

 

[RockofStrength]

Karl Marx was.
Lenin was.
Trotsky was.
Stalin was.

Those men were social anarchists, at best. Anarchy to them was merely a means to achieve authoritarianism.

An anarchist, which is the term you have used incessantly, is not a socialist/collectivist anarchist. A simple anarchist is merely one who desires the utter removal of the state in his life: no laws, no strictures, no governance whatsoever. This is the most common and accepted view of anarchism as a term, and most clearly describes anarchism of the individualist school.

That still leaves my initial statement correct: one cannot be an anarchist and an authoritarian. One can be a collectivist anarchist, or a social anarchist, but cannot be simply an anarchist in the common sense of the term.

 

[steveh_131]

Yup!!
According to one of the founders of modern Anarchism.
Anarchism is "stateless socialism."
~ Michael Bakunin

They are demanding government-forced redistribution of wealth.

I don't comprehend how this qualifies as anarchy.

 

[steveh_131]

A. You disagree with UncleMike.
B. Anarchists disagree with UncleMike.
Therefore
C. You = Anarchist

Yup. The logic is indisputable.

 

[UncleMike]

Those men were social anarchists, at best. Anarchy to them was merely a means to achieve authoritarianism.

An anarchist, which is the term you have used incessantly, is not a socialist/collectivist anarchist. A simple anarchist is merely one who desires the utter removal of the state in his life: no laws, no strictures, no governance whatsoever. This is the most common and accepted view of anarchism as a term, and most clearly describes anarchism of the individualist school.

That still leaves my initial statement correct: one cannot be an anarchist and an authoritarian. One can be a collectivist anarchist, or a social anarchist, but cannot be simply an anarchist in the common sense of the term.

These kids are NOT simple Anarchists.
They are EXACTLY what the founders of Socialist/Communism called for when they drafted their original plans for taking over Europe, and eventually the World.
They are using anarchism as the tool to accomplish their goal of Socialism.
PERIOD!!
Please read "The Communist Manifesto".
Marx and Engle laid the framework that drives the Socialist Movement.
Nothing has changed, as far as their followers are concerned, except the century.

 

[UncleMike]

They are demanding government-forced redistribution of wealth.

I don't comprehend how this qualifies as anarchy.

You're correct!
You don't comprehend....

 

[UncleMike]

A. You disagree with UncleMike.
B. Anarchists disagree with UncleMike.
Therefore
C. You = Anarchist

Yup. The logic is indisputable.

Another worthless analogy.
You're pretty good at dreaming those up.

 

[.45 Dave]

I just watched an interview with a couple of the toads from the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Basically they want BHO reelected and fix global warming and take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. Does local law enforcement have access to a water cannon?

Potato guns would be better!

 

[steveh_131]

You're correct!
You don't comprehend....

an·ar·chyNoun/ˈanərkē/

1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Please, please explain to me how a centralized government single-payer health system can possibly fall within the definition of anarchy.

 

[steveh_131]

Another worthless analogy.
You're pretty good at dreaming those up.

Once you're finished looking up the definition of "anarchy", I recommend you look up "analogy" as well.

 

[RockofStrength]

These kids are NOT simple Anarchists.
They are EXACTLY what the founders of Socialist/Communism called for when they drafted their original plans for taking over Europe, and eventually the World.
They are using anarchism as the tool to accomplish their goal of Socialism.
PERIOD!!
Please read "The Communist Manifesto".
Marx and Engle laid the framework that drives the Socialist Movement.
Nothing has changed, as far as their followers are concerned, except the century.

I am well aware of how Communism was supposed to take over: the proletariat was to revolt against the bourgeois in a manner designed to make it impossible for the private business owners to continue their manner of living which in turn allowed the Communists/Socialists to take over the abandoned businesses and collectivize them. Dictatorship of the Proletariat and then that ever so elusive Communist Utopia was supposed to follow after (apparently forgetting that a utopia is unattainable 99.98% of the time ).

Even the people in that school are not, however, anarchists in the sense that we use the term today. That was the only point that I was making. Some of these protesting tools have made demands that I myself have laughed at for their insanity. The problem is that this Occupy X City revolt thing has so many backgrounds, so many different people and ideologies, that to call them all anarchists, or even socialist anarchists, seems lacking in scope. Now, they may all be playing into the hands of the socialists, that I don't know, but they certainly are not all anarchists in any sense. Causing chaos has benefited many people, Communists, Socialists, Facists, and authoritarians of other kinds as well.

It seems to me that all they are, if you must have a term to describe them all, is angry people without any real thought, reason, or intelligence behind their actions. They're just mad because the economy sucks, their country is going bankrupt and so are many others, etc. They want to march and chant slogans because...well, that's what magically fixes things right? You protest and suddenly it's all sunshine and rainbows and unicorn farts? Some are nutso anarchists of every stripe, no doubt. Collectivists are OBVIOUSLY marching out there and letting their views be voiced loudly. But they're not everyone.

 

[jsharmon7]

I just read their list of "demands." Some of it doesn't sound bad, most of it sounds like socialism.

 

[UncleMike]

I am well aware of how Communism was supposed to take over: the proletariat was to revolt against the bourgeois in a manner designed to make it impossible for the private business owners to continue their manner of living which in turn allowed the Communists/Socialists to take over the abandoned businesses and collectivize them. Dictatorship of the Proletariat and then that ever so elusive Communist Utopia was supposed to follow after (apparently forgetting that a utopia is unattainable 99.98% of the time ).

Even the people in that school are not, however, anarchists in the sense that we use the term today. That was the only point that I was making. Some of these protesting tools have made demands that I myself have laughed at for their insanity. The problem is that this Occupy X City revolt thing has so many backgrounds, so many different people and ideologies, that to call them all anarchists, or even socialist anarchists, seems lacking in scope. Now, they may all be playing into the hands of the socialists, that I don't know, but they certainly are not all anarchists in any sense. Causing chaos has benefited many people, Communists, Socialists, Facists, and authoritarians of other kinds as well.

It seems to me that all they are, if you must have a term to describe them all, is angry people without any real thought, reason, or intelligence behind their actions. They're just mad because the economy sucks, their country is going bankrupt and so are many others, etc. They want to march and chant slogans because...well, that's what magically fixes things right? You protest and suddenly it's all sunshine and rainbows and unicorn farts? Some are nutso anarchists of every stripe, no doubt. Collectivists are OBVIOUSLY marching out there and letting their views be voiced loudly. But they're not everyone.

IMO
They are being used as tools by the people who want this country to fail economically.
And you're right.
They are not everyone.

 

[hooky]

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

Living wage regardless of employment
Open Borders
No nuclear power
End fossil fuel economy
Free College education
Single Payer healthcare
Raise min wage to $20/hr
Debt forgiveness for everyone on the planet


No wonder they want BHO re-elected. They have the right to protest and I have the right to say they're a bunch of morons without regard for anything that has to do with individual responsibility.

 

[Plinker]

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

Living wage regardless of employment
Open Borders
No nuclear power
End fossil fuel economy
Free College education
Single Payer healthcare
Raise min wage to $20/hr
Debt forgiveness for everyone on the planet


No wonder they want BHO re-elected. They have the right to protest and I have the right to say they're a bunch of morons without regard for anything that has to do with individual responsibility.

See red above. Are they proposing universal bankruptcy? Or are they talking governments? Because I could really use a new car...

 

[eldirector]

See red above. Are they proposing universal bankruptcy? Or are they talking governments? Because I could really use a new car...

When I first saw that, I figured I need to find me a few 99%-ers to loan me $20 each! After all, that's only a hour's work at the "new" minimum wage, and they wouldn't expect me to pay them back!

 

[hooky]

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Get your new car now and avoid the rush right before it gets enacted.

 

[88GT]

Specific Demand And Action List For Washington, DC | OccupyWallSt.org Forum

Here are their demands. Although I don't agree with everything I feel at least it's a start. I support the fact that some Americans are starting to open their eyes instead of whining and doing nothing.

A start? A start for what? The New Soviet Union's latest satellite country. Which of those can you honestly support? (Not including the paper ballot one. I could probably get behind that; though I'd much prefer an inked finger to prevent multiple votes.) Everything on their list is designed to erode the individual liberties, wipe out personal responsibility, and hand every last bit of control over to the federal government. Surely you don't support any of that. Please tell me you don't support that.

Is this a battle of personal opinion or a discussion of constitutional rights. I am not saying they are right or wrong in their protest. I am just stating they have the right to form a non violent protest without being hosed by police or people with yipping dogs or walking through with your elbows stuck out. Done posting here it's been fun gentlemen and have a good week.

I humbly suggest you work on your presentation then because your comments have an air of support to their cause, not their right to protest for a cause. And IIRC, you brought up the specifics of their protest in an effort to justify it (opposition to government, though that is about as far from the truth as it can be).