babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Should Social movements become more confrontational (violent)

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Should Social movements become more confrontational (violent)
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 18 February 2003 12:37 AM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do social movements need to adopt more violent means to achieve their ends? What happens should such a movement choose to become "militant"? It adversely affected certain Civil Rights advocacy groups (Black Power movements such as SNCC or the Black Panthers) But is it always so negative in Outcome? In particular I am taking about social protest in open democratic societies (Europe, North America).
What are the benefits of such militant action? what are the pit falls?

From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Absolutely NOT!!!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 18 February 2003 12:50 AM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can a bad tree bear good fruit?
From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 18 February 2003 02:05 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps violence should be defined.
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 February 2003 02:08 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there is a reason why democratic governments guarantee the right of peaceful protest.

It's one thing when citizens of a country register their displeasure by rallying and speeches. It's another when they start rioting.

The former usually gets a point made. The latter does not.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
snrlck
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3182

posted 18 February 2003 07:31 AM      Profile for snrlck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IMHO, when movements become violent, they stop being socialist.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 18 February 2003 08:35 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it depends on what their principles are and if they believe violence has a good chance of acheiving their goals while remaining true to their principles. Achieving their goals is the benefit. Failure means the possibilty of achieving those goals non-violently becomes even more difficult for everyone.
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 08:55 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My problem with this thread is: I don't understand its purpose. Has anyone suggested violence? I haven't seen it. Is there any indication that social movements might become more violent? Less so, if we look at the evidence. F15 moved 15 million people world wide. Crowds as large as 2-2.5 millions were reported. All peaceful (excepf for Greece) which is almost unprecedented on this scale.

So I would like to know what prompted this thread. Where is it coming from? And where does it hope to go? Should we take a vote? All for more violence raise their hands? And then what?

Some clarification from the 'author' would be welcome at this point.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 18 February 2003 10:27 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i agree .. no one is talking about violence. red herring.

i think it's interesting that the last two threads that "the author" has begun (before this one) have been:

- the consumption tax (an idea that shifts much of the tax burden from the rich to middle-income people and the poor, whilst leaving investment income tax-free),

- the problems of Saddam or Kim Jong Il ("is there even a problem? Is there a time when sanctions are good? Is there a time when warfare is appropriate? Will the UN always work? Does it work now? Answer any questionyou like or make up new ones to answer. i am merely curious.")


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 18 February 2003 12:38 PM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Violence: Destruction of property, harm to other human beings (whether part of the establishment or not). I suppose graffiti is not violent so Destructionof property is physically destroying something to the point where the property must be replaced/repaired.

Militancy: basically taking a military form (top down command) and carrying weapons (from brassknuckles to shotguns)

any other questions?


From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 18 February 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question of violence is a tactical one. Will it advance the cause, will it be more successful than non-violence? These are questions one must ask oneself.

quote:
William Domhoff (from his book "The Power Elite and the State"):
"...Liberals, labor, and minorities, despite their great numbers, never win much against the conservative coalition unless there is a fear of disruption and violence loose in the land due to the actions of strikers, civil rights demonstrators, angry rioters in northern ghettos, or students demonstrating against wars... I am asserting that social disruption, whether violent or non-violent, is an essential factor in any successful challenge to the power structures in the United States."

In the U.K. now, if Blair were to go ahead with the war, then the protest movement may begin to perceive violence as essential.

In the U.S., the state has a monopoly on violence. Violent movements would simply be crushed in the bud. Strategically speaking then, it should be advised against. The fact that violence often works is demonstrated by Washington's eagerness to use it, but activists should tread more warily.

One advantage of using violence is it would significantly raise the costs for the State in containing popular dissent. When the costs become unmanageable, the government will be forced to concede.

Then again, they could just gun us all down. Remember Kent State?


[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 18 February 2003 02:01 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Violence: Destruction of property, harm to other human beings

It is interesting that you value property more that human beings.

If someone pours sand into the engine of a bulldozer to disable it from destroying a forest, is that a violent act? If yes, then why is destroying the bulldozer violent but the destruction of the forest not violent?

The elites never hesitate to use violence, including enlisting the forces of the state (army and police), to protect their positions of wealth and power (Homestake Mining Company strike, for just one example). Yet you question if the left is justified using violence?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 02:37 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find the author's attitude more and more 'provocative' on this thread. It is the kind of question people ask when they want to stir up trouble and goad others into making irresponsible and overly emotional statements (that they usually retract after reflection).

My request for clarification was ignored and no explanation was given about the premise behind the opening post. I think something about it stinks.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 February 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But if pouring sand into the engine of a bulldozer isn't violent, then why would pouring sugar in the gas tank of my ex-wife's car be violent?
If breaking a window at a McDonald's isn't violent, then why is it violent to break windows at a Mosque?

If blocking the path of a delegate or occupying the office of an MPP isn't violent, then why is blockading an abortion clinic violent?

I think it becomes a bit of a boondoggle if one tries to judge "violence" solely on how much we do or don't like the victim of it. I think it's far easier, and behooves the mature adults that we are, to simply regard all violence as violence and look for better ways. Especially when our democracy guarantees us those ways.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 18 February 2003 02:57 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think, with regards to the anti-war movement at present, it would be self-defeating to take up violent tactics.

Violence begets violence, and does not speak well for peace.

Our movement will be most effective and most meaningful if we can delay or prevent war with completely peaceful protests and demonstrations. If we want a different way, we have no choice but to set the example for that way.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3606

posted 18 February 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Marx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
what about crowds seizing corporate owned propeerty. imagine several hundred people armed with screwdrivers and crowbars enter a mcdonalds, then dismantle the whole thing and cart away all that was inside. thus leaving an empty shell ready to be filled by the community store installation team who follows them. start a depot of commercial products(fridges, ovens, cliothes racks, shelving etc...) which is used by the community store builders to reassmble businesses where they feel they are necessary . and of course run the businesses in a co-operative manner with each worker having one vote and one share in the profits of the business.

is that violent?


From: we may not convince you, but we'll convince your children | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3606

posted 18 February 2003 03:00 PM      Profile for Marx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
just had to add, Dave Boaz, why do you ask stupid questions aimed at delegitimizing people on the left?
From: we may not convince you, but we'll convince your children | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 18 February 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
any other questions?

Nope. I call troll. Please drive through.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 February 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
is that violent?

Does this hypothetical action have the support of a majority? Or is it a small group of people who think they know best? Because a small group of people who think they know best could do the same thing to a food bank, a community center, or a family planning centre & we'd see it for what it is: a small group of people who think they know best. And we'd probably consider it violent as well.

Why not change the laws instead of the store fixtures? It's more democratic, and you don't need as many screwdrivers.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3606

posted 18 February 2003 03:10 PM      Profile for Marx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
magoo you know as well as i that the powers that be are not going to legislate the removal of corporate bodies
From: we may not convince you, but we'll convince your children | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 18 February 2003 03:12 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
any other questions?

Yes.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 February 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
magoo you know as well as i that the powers that be are not going to legislate the removal of corporate bodies

Has a majority ever made it clear that that's what they want??

It seems to me that those who favour "direct action" are usually those who also know that that's their only hope; their politics are never, ever going to appeal to a democratic majority. If ALF could simply vote away eating meat, they would. If the Xtian right could vote away homosexuality, they would. If the KKK could vote people of colour back to another continent they would. But they can't.

I suspect your group of screwdriver-wielding activists would only be reaching for the screwdriver because they know that not enough other Canadians share their views to make democracy an option for them. If it were, why wouldn't they take it?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3606

posted 18 February 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for Marx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
but is it not the responsibility of those in the society to work in the best interests of the society in which they live? you can hardly call canada a democracy. or rather a democracy in anything other than the most trivial sense. we elect people once every 4-5 years. they may or may not do what they say they are going to do and we have no real recourse if they don't. and what about economic democracy? or democracy in the media? it just isn't there. and ya, i think that a significant majority of canadians put societies interests ahead of corporate interests. why should i sit still because they have been duped into believing that the interests of "big money" are their own?
From: we may not convince you, but we'll convince your children | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 18 February 2003 03:30 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a somewhat interesting point.

The United States of America
The Republic of Ireland
The State of Israel

were all founded by violent action including assassination, murder, destruction of property, bombing, and war. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, etc.

I think the F15 showed massively that our protest was peaceful, and wants peace.

All over the world (except perhaps in the US) the State has an overwhelming majority of weapons. Encouraging violence would simply play into the hands of hard-liner authoritarians of whatever political stripe and lead to injury and death.


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 18 February 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about India?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 18 February 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
From the three examples hibachi gives, we can see fairly clearly that anything based or founded in violence is bound to remain violent. It's supremely unsustainable and precarious.

For real sustainable success, the form, function, and end goals of a movement or action must all be in line with eachother.

You cannot build peace with violence.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 February 2003 03:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
but is it not the responsibility of those in the society to work in the best interests of the society in which they live?

Some would say that firing gay teachers or closing down family planning clinics is in Canada's best interests. I don't agree, mind you, but we'd better come to a common agreement about what the best interests of our country is. We can't just take 30 million opinions and start acting on them.

quote:
and what about economic democracy?

Does this truly exist anywhere? And if so, did it not originate when enough people wanted it?

quote:
democracy in the media?

People choose what they want to hear and what they want to believe. You and I are here, aren't we? Anyone who tires of the corporate press is welcome to join us.

quote:
why should i sit still because they have been duped into believing that the interests of "big money" are their own?

Nobody's asking you to do nothing. Go talk to them. Explain to them that they're suffering from a false consciousness. Show them a better way and try to convince them to join you in it. That's democracy. Doing an end run on that, ignoring the opinions of your fellow Canadians because they've been "duped" while you see clearly... that's not.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 18 February 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
In this argument, though, the dismantling of a McDonald's and its replacement with a community coop would be a very effective consciousness-raiser, no?

Sometimes shock value and grand, elaborate demonstrations are necessary. I just don't think it's ever necessary to hurt someone or just flat-out destroy something. (In Marx's scenario, the activists don't destroy the McDonalds, they just take it apart piece by piece)...


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420

posted 18 February 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for statica   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the reason this question strikes me as strange is because it seems rather like someone intellectually pondering a question while overseeing the movement...

"hmmm," the intellectual says to himself from his podium, "is violence justified?".

the answer to the question lies within the group of people who are actually participating in that struggle and debating the tactics they wish to use, not from some abstract commentary from those outside of that struggle.

if there is a larger, intellectual question here, it's how the larger community of activists plan to deal/relate with those activists who choose militant tactics (which sometimes get labeled as 'violent').

such issues as solidarity, tolerance, diversity of tactics need to be discussed. because whether or not someone objects to more militant tactics isn't going to suddenly convince a group to 'not do that'. they're probably going to do it, anyway, it's the reaction for the other groups that compose the movement that is important.

if a group is militant, will/can other groups -- whether they ascribe to the same tactics or not -- still be solidarity with those members in struggle and the greater cause they represent?


From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 18 February 2003 03:48 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You seem to assume that our oligarchy is somehow democratically legitimate. Free trade, for example was rejected by the majority of Canadians, yet we had it thrust upon us. And the enforcement of free trade agreements, for the benefit of corporations, is violent. It has resulted in the loss of livelyhood, medical care, control of resources, and democratic accountability. Throwing someone out of work seems like a pretty violent act to me. The results of which are being seen around the world, and especially in South America, where enforcement of free trade has been most savage.

quote:
I suspect your group of screwdriver-wielding activists would only be reaching for the screwdriver because they know that not enough other Canadians share their views to make democracy an option for them. If it were, why wouldn't they take it?

If we were represented by true democratic process or institutions, screwdriver-wielding activists would not be necessary. Since we lack these institutions and are marginalized by the process, people are left with no alternative.

My hypothetical bulldozer question was to address if an act of destruction of property can be equated with an act of force against a person. Can one intimidate, injure, or kill an inanimate manufactured object? Or is it that profit is the real target that is so objectionable?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
statica: the reason this question strikes me as strange is because it seems rather like someone intellectually pondering a question while overseeing the movement..."hmmm," the intellectual says to himself from his podium, "is violence justified?".
For me it sounds like someone compiling a list of social activists who are willing to endorse violence. Maybe I am paranoid, but it does happen.

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 18 February 2003 03:52 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is probably an opportune thread to go on record as saying that Marx's from line, "KILL THE CAPITALISTS" really pisses me off. Not only is it juvenile, but it serves to undermine just about every point he joins into, trying to support.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Carry on.

[ 18 February 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with oldgoat!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 18 February 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For me it sounds like someone compiling a list of social activists who are willing to endorse violence. Maybe I am paranoid, but it does happen.

That was my first thought too.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 03:57 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Watch out people, it could be entrapment!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 February 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In this argument, though, the dismantling of a McDonald's and its replacement with a community coop would be a very effective consciousness-raiser, no?

To tell you the truth, I don't know how effective it would really be. Big and showy perhaps. Make the news maybe. But effective?

What's more, the right could make the same claim, as they proceeded to ("non-violently") dismantle some institution of their choosing. I think that claiming a "right" to such an action, when it would necessarily give the same right to any other Canadian, would be a deal with the devil.

quote:
If we were represented by true democratic process or institutions, screwdriver-wielding activists would not be necessary. Since we lack these institutions and are marginalized by the process, people are left with no alternative.

Are you suggesting that if Canada were a "true" democracy, then fast-food restaurants wouldn't exist? Or that there wouldn't always be some small faction of society willing to take a screwdriver to it?

May I remind you, and all of Canada while I'm at it, that if you don't like McDonalds, don't eat there. They'll promptly go out of business and you can build whatever you'd like on their grave. That's an alternative that IS available to you... so why aren't Canadians, frustrated with our non-democracy, voting with their feet this way??


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 18 February 2003 04:05 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Watch out people, it could be entrapment!

I'm not given to paranoia, but I do note he evaded your earlier question about his thinking behind the thread. He's probably just trying to bait a few people into saying intemperate things that he can throw back in our faces in later debates.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope I am paranoid, but I have recently read an article about both FBI and CSIS doing this kind of thing to find out who might be willing to support terrorists. In the US, there are thousands who were arrested on suspicion alone and still unaccounted for. I know we live in Canada, but the topic of 'violence' is a very dangerous topic in this crazy and paranoid (I am not the only one) post 9-11 era. So I thought I would mention my concern. Feel free to ignore it.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 18 February 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a valid concern though. Anyone who thinks this sort of thing is beneath the US (and throw in Canada for the hell of it) has not read their history books. I think in this case "I'm probably paranoid, but..." is a wise safety measure.
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 18 February 2003 04:18 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
That's just creepy to the nines. I don't even want to think about FBI or CSIS trolls around here!

All the same, I'll take the possibility under advisement!


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 18 February 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, this Boaz guy sounds like a real creep. I think its better to ignore him. He's shady and dishonest.
From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 18 February 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peasant: Oh! Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

King Arthur: Bloody peasant!

Peasant: Oh what a give away! You hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. You saw him repressing me?"

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The greatest, most concise description of our system ever.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3606

posted 18 February 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for Marx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ok i shall change my from line.

I say we stop communicating with boaz altogether. Damn government operatives


From: we may not convince you, but we'll convince your children | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 18 February 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we should use him (without his knowledge) to infiltrate the american gov't for our own purposes. He'll never know.

Dave Boaz - you did not read this. This post does not exist. You are a happy person. Tell us your secrets.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 18 February 2003 06:33 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ok i shall change my from line.

Thank you for making my day. I feel validated.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 February 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ditto.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
cosmiccommunist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1933

posted 18 February 2003 10:37 PM      Profile for cosmiccommunist   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Statica made an excellent point earlier...this old "is violence acceptable?" debate is getting a little bit old and tired...when oppressed groups and revolutionary movements decide they are going to resist violently, the debates of activists go right out the window...the first time i ever witnessed violence at a demo was as a youngster growing up in Regent Park...the police had stormed somebody's house while looking to make a drug bust...as it turned out, they had the wrong house AND on top of that shot a middleaged woman living there in the leg/hip...when news spread around the hood about the police stepping over their boundary lines, people gathered outside the police station...eventually there were hundreds outside...and somebody threw a molotov cocktail and a rock through the window of the police station...i somehow doubt they participated much in the type of debate you see here...and i doubt they would care to...as for somebody earlier saying that socialism has nothing to do with violence, how did the "socialists" come to power in Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, etc? And if that isnt your idea of socialism (it certainly isnt mine), were the anarchist collectives in Spain not armed? if and when oppressed groups/revolutionary movements decide they have to use violence, the debates of vanguardists dont really mean much ultimately

and by the way, im not advocating violence...im not a dogmatic pacifist, either...if you resort to violence at any point, you had better be aware that there will be serious repercussions for doing so because the state will use it as the basis for more blatant violent repression...it shouldnt be resorted to mindlessly
by the same token i refuse to denounce those who do legitimately feel they have no other resort other than to resist violently

http://loveandrage.pitas.com


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 19 February 2003 05:07 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
. I think in this case "I'm probably paranoid, but..." is a wise safety measure.

No, I ran this by the guys following me, and they say it's not paranoid in the least.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 19 February 2003 09:30 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote from Marx - "Is It Violent"

Let me correct some mistakes in your post. 'Corporate Owned' is a misnomer. Corporations are entities owned by people. If you owned McDonalds stock or a mutual fund that invested in McDonalds, you potentially were damaging your own property.

Actually, McDonalds is a organization that licenses franchises. The businesses themselves are usually privately owned or private corporations. You need at least $1 million cash to start a restaurant.

Dismantling the restaurant presents some problems. First, you've probably put 10 people out of work immediately, and from working at McDonalds, they probably didn't have a lot of money to begin with. That's not nice! Of course they could work at, by your description, a large appliance dump.

Second, not all businesses need fridges, stoves and shelves. Most need a confidant public to spend their money, without worrying about yahoo's stealing their Filet O'Fishes in a cooperative manner.

I don't this plan is viable enough to be considered violent.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 19 February 2003 10:12 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In this argument, though, the dismantling of a McDonald's and its replacement with a community coop would be a very effective consciousness-raiser, no?

Yes yes yes! I love this plan! I've said it before, dismantle McDonalds and replace it with Chompsky's (tm), an eco and labour friendly fast food place.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 19 February 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
if and when oppressed groups/revolutionary movements decide they have to use violence, the debates of vanguardists dont really mean much ultimately

It seems as though every time the topic of violence (aka "diversity of tactics") comes up, someone will point out that throughout history, people have needed some degree of violence to break the brutal yoke of oppression, and will bring up credible examples to back this. Invariably though, the examples are of people who did not have the opportunity to vote, who were denied free speech, or who did not enjoy a guarantee of basic human rights.

How is a university student who disagrees with a war on Iraq denied his/her rights? How is an "Earth First" member denied a vote? How is an ALF member oppressed?

Before these historical situations can be used to justify violence in the present, the present needs to be related back to the situation in the past... and most of the time this comparison just doesn't cut it.

quote:
dismantle McDonalds and replace it with Chompsky's (tm), an eco and labour friendly fast food place.

Hehe. Lemme guess: Noam "Chompsky" dressed in a clown suit and handing out balloons?

Actually, why not put your Chompsky's right beside the McDonalds & let the public decide? If your food is better, cheaper, or both, then you won't need to get your hands dirty dismantling the McDonalds - it'll dismantle itself.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 19 February 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just to out the _actual_ Dave Boaz, he's a vice-president or something at the Cato Institute, which he joined in 1981. Unless our resident Dave Boaz started working with Cato at the age of four, it's just a coinkidink.

As far as I know, the Cato Institute has no affiliation with OJ or the Green Hornet.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 19 February 2003 10:49 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hehe. Lemme guess: Noam "Chompsky" dressed in a clown suit and handing out balloons?

Nah, too undignified. I was thinking we could liberate Birdie from McDonalds and just remove her right wing


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 19 February 2003 11:23 AM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actuzally i ask this questionout a genuine interest to know the answer. I do not work for the government. In fact I am often at odds with Washington.
I ask the question because it was posed at the end of a symposium and i thought the answer there was preemptory ( "that is not pertinent" said the speaker).

From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 February 2003 11:45 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you're a government employee and you dis the government so much, why not put your money where your mouth is and work in the private sector?

quote:
Actually, why not put your Chompsky's right beside the McDonalds & let the public decide? If your food is better, cheaper, or both, then you won't need to get your hands dirty dismantling the McDonalds - it'll dismantle itself.

Your faith in the picture-storybook version of capitalism and the invisible hand is very touching, Mr. Magoo. Need I remind you of these little things called corporate subsidies and a corporate income tax code that virtually invites wanton abuse by anyone who has greased enough palms to get special exemptions in the tax code?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 19 February 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wouldn't Chompsky's be able to take advantage of that very same corporate tax code?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 19 February 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wouldn't "Chompsky's" and its cooperative ownership be taxed under the same system as the McBurger restaurant next door?
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 19 February 2003 04:07 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
heh, you read my mind Mr. Magoo! (hope you survived the experience )
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 19 February 2003 05:38 PM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo and sheep, let us recall that under capitalism there would be no corporate welfare. Let's not endorse any bigger a government than we have to guys.
From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 February 2003 12:35 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're just pointing out that "Chompsky's" would enjoy the benefits of whatever tax system McDonald's does & would thus be free to compete with McDonald's for the public dollar. No need then to physically dismantle the McDonald's when you can take away their business by offering a product that the public prefers.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 20 February 2003 01:23 AM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but as we all know competiton is just a way for the rich to get richer as they continue to be successful while the poor remain poor because PUBLIC education failed them by not teaching them to not repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2003 03:39 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what if McDonald's gets a special exemption in the tax code?

It's not hard to do. Get a Congresscritter to slide in a provision that grants a special exemption to a "Corporation incorporated on the date of November 17, 1977, in the State of Delaware" and blah blah blah.

Don't believe me? I'll find an example of exactly this.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 February 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then it better not involve a "Congresscritter" - this is Canada. And if this is something that businesses routinely do, then I'd suggest that "Chompsky's" should do the same (crazy not to!).
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 20 February 2003 10:26 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo and sheep, let us recall that under capitalism there would be no corporate welfare.

Did you say this? Really? 'Cause last I looked, every jurisdiction in the capitalist world offers corporate welfare to whatever companies deign to grace their shores, either in the form of reduced taxes or direct grants and loan guarantees.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 February 2003 10:26 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, but as we all know competiton is just a way for the rich to get richer as they continue to be successful while the poor remain poor because PUBLIC education failed them by not teaching them to not repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

Do you have an identifiable problem with public education in Canada or are you just a snob?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 February 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My public education in Canada taught me to transcend competition.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 February 2003 10:32 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
C'mon WingNut... don't you remember back in about grade 7 when all the rich and middle class kids were taken out of their classrooms to watch that training film called "Only a Sucker Repeats His Mistakes", while all the poor kids were told we were getting mumps shots?
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 February 2003 10:36 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca