Police officer dies in Italian soccer riot (2 Viewers)

[jane]

and just because someone doesn't cry when a cop dies doesn't mean they want to - how did you put it - skip through fields of flowers with dreadlocks coming out their arse.
and i don't understand where the discussion of the right to own eyeliner or 'requesting permission to own a copybook' is supposed to be going, it seems to be based on a cartoon misconception of anarchism rather than what has actually been said:

No but my point, which, fine, was flippant, is that not everyone wants to live inside a utopian dream, not because it might not be nice to have that sort of egalitarian world, but because what people really want is to know how they can make their lives better today and tomorrow, how they're going to feed and clothe themselves adn their families, and yes, there is some concern for the future, but they don't want to be told that there won't be justice in the world for a few more generations. They want small changes as well as big ones.

I never said anyone shoudl be sad if a cop dies, or if anyone dies. It's up to you to decide who to mourn, but my point, which I already made, is that to suggest that a statement of a lack of sympathy cannot be seen as neutral. Why not, then, post a thread everytime some randomer dies and say, "But I don't care, that's nothing to do with me?" I was not trying to get anyone to be sad, but pointing out that it's a bit silly to suggest it was ever a neutral comment.

My other point is that the concept of 'personal possessions' is very slippery indeed. Where do these stop and end? I'm totally serious. I mean, my job deals with objects, and there are huge problems with how archaeologists define, not just objects in the past, but also those in the present, and that no matter how we construct a definition of what an object is, it is instantly undermined by the way people make, use, own and even discard objects in the real, lived world. Seriously. And different communities and societies define them in different ways, so I'm curious as to know how the categories of property/personal possessions are divided up, and how these problems are actually dealt with.

 

[pete]

I was paraphrasing Pete not you, partly to annoy him

How mature.

and partly because every time this sort of topic comes up

And how many times would that be, then? I count twice, including this time.

he dismisses any notion of anarchist theory (theory mind, not rules) as unrealistic, unworkable or utopian.

Because (in order): it is, it is, and - not surprisingly - it is. And I'll bet you my first month's lentil rations that you never get to prove me wrong.

He's also never put forward his thoughts, but is content to criticise others.

Don't see how that's relevant to be honest. I could believe in formulating policy by reading tealeaves and it wouldn't make anarchism any more or less suitable a target for criticism.

 

[nooleen]

someone find donal and give him a smack

 

[Malarky]

Let's try some troubleshooting for your egalitarian collectives: I don't like sharing eyeliner. It spreads eye diseases and stuff. Can I own some? Because I've gone through that whole makeup-just-plays-to-the-patriarchy thing and came out the other end deciding I like the way it defines my eyes. And I'd like to keep it. So where does this belong? Or will I automatically fall into your system, like a cog in a machine? Where does human agency fit into your anarchist collective? By which I mean, how do you expect you will deal with people who don't want to be anarchists, but aren't necessarily the Bad People In Power?

I think this was the first thing that came up to be answered, but its coming so thick and fast I could be wrong. You're mistaking private possessions with private property. Two very different things. As a way of eliminating the problem of a select few seeking property (and therefore power) for themselves but not putting it to use or inhabiting it, an anarchist society would place wealth, starting with the land, in the hands of all members of that society (or community, or neighbourhood what have you) and protect only those uses of it which are considered just by agreement. Thus attempts to transform minority dissent into, for example, property rights would be made irrelevant by simply ignoring the borders and keep out signs of property owned, but not used, by an individual/group. Everyone would be allowed possessions, including eyeliner.

As for those who didn't want to take part in said communities, then obviously their personal liberties would be respected, they are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't trangress anothers freedom, but they would not have access to the benefits of such communities, free health care, food production etc

 

[Janer]

You read that of the back of a matchbox

 

[Janer]

Also while I expect to get shit for this, Anarchy/Punk lost alot of gloss when it became taken over by middle class educated people just like Malachy/Shorty/Nooly etc
all studying away in uni, I'd like to see them in 20 years when they have big city jobs and family how they would react to teh stuff they spout here.
When I was into anarchy it was just working class and u knew in 20 years time we'd end up in shit jobs like delivery men/council etc
I tend to go along with Pete's views on this particular thread.

 

[Malarky]

And I'll bet you my first month's lentil rations that you never get to prove me wrong.

How mature.

Don't see how that's relevant to be honest. I could believe in formulating policy by reading tealeaves and it wouldn't make anarchism any more or less suitable a target for criticism.

Its relevant because for all your whiney requests for concrete solutions in the here and now, you've never once laid down your solutions or your politics on the line, but are content to snipe from the sidelines.

 

[It Will Never Last]

When I was into anarchy it was just working class and u knew in 20 years time we'd end up in shit jobs like delivery men/council etc

You were always the Jim Davidson of anarchy...

 

[Janer]

No he is a staunch Tory supporter.

 

[Malarky]

Also while I expect to get shit for this, Anarchy/Punk lost alot of gloss when it became taken over by middle class educated people just like Malachy/Shorty/Nooly etc
all studying away in uni, I'd like to see them in 20 years when they have big city jobs and family.
When I was into anarchy it was just working class and u knew in 20 years time we'd end up in shit jobs like delivery men/council etc

Haha, way to make up stuff. I've been working in warehouses or on the dole since I left Belfast at 18 and just recently started a music tech btec at college.

Punk lost a lot of gloss for me when sexist, racist, anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, walking cliches became accepted.

 

[Janer]

So where does ur job career lay after uni?

 

[Malarky]

I'm going for a jog - I'll come back to your other points in a bit Jane.

 

[nooleen]

Also while I expect to get shit for this, Anarchy/Punk lost alot of gloss when it became taken over by middle class educated people just like Malachy/Shorty/Nooly etc

i'd say it gained a lot of gloss. not to mention eyeliner.

 

[Malarky]

So where does ur job career lay after uni?

It's not uni - and hopefully making music. Now fuck off.

 

[Janer]

Or u put me back on ignore?

If it's music and u hate Punk??
Tosser

 

[nooleen]

It's not uni - and hopefully making music. Now fuck off.

music is no job career. arty-farty nonsense.

 

[Janer]

I'm going to throw stones at a cop shop - I'll come back to your other points in a bit Jane.

 

[sexypornolady]

Jogging rocks.

 

[pete]

Its relevant because for all your whiney requests for concrete solutions in the here and now,

Such as? Wasn't someone talking about ad hominem attacks earlier?

you've never once laid down your solutions or your politics on the line,

I don't normally find it necessary to explicitly define myself by my politics, but I vote socialist. Hope this helps.

but are contect to snipe from the sidelines.

Too right. It's where it's at.

 

[jane]

I think this was the first thing that came up to be answered, but its coming so thick and fast I could be wrong. You're mistaking private possessions with private property. Two very different things. As a way of eliminating the problem of a select few seeking property (and therefore power) for themselves but not putting it to use or inhabiting it, an anarchist society would place wealth, starting with the land, in the hands of all members of that society (or community, or neighbourhood what have you) and protect only those uses of it which are considered just by agreement. Thus attempts to transform minority dissent into, for example, property rights would be made irrelevant by simply ignoring the borders and keep out signs of property owned, but not used, by an individual/group. Everyone would be allowed possessions, including eyeliner.

As for those who didn't want to take part in said communities, then obviously their personal liberties would be respected, they are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't trangress anothers freedom, but they would not have access to the benefits of such communities, free health care, food production etc

But thinking beyond this, who would produce these posessions? Sure, a liner pencil can be produced out of local stuff, but what about medical equipment? I'll trust a nice natural cosmetics company, but I'm not sure I want my iron lung made from recycled materials in a squat. Seriously, though, as much as I am loath to tout the greatness of modern medicine, it has given people back their lives, and the problem is, the companies who make the equipment and medicines are some of the absolute worst offenders when it comes to wrecking the people and places on this planet. So how is that dealt with without turning around and telling people that we have to stop treating cancer because it's bad for the collective to buy the life-saving machines?

And if minority dissent resulting in property ownership resulted in a transgression into their property, how is that respecting their desire not to participate? Or do you mean if they tried to take possession of land/territory owned by the collective?

And how is just ignoring their borders not actually using the majority to exert power over a minority?

I'm not saying that you can't have an anarchist collective that would work on some level, but, because it is just a theory, it is based on an insufficient acknowledgement of the grey area known as 'human agency'. Where does the line between possession and property lie? Or an object and property?