Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[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...

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.

If extra-legal violence is used by a state to oppress people, and in addition there is no possibility of the people electing a different set of rulers, then revolutionary violence may be justified. I am not so much of a wish-washy liberal to deny the possibility of violent rebellion in extreme circumstances.

"Non-democratic means" is indeed somewhat vague, but I imply minority groups with radical agendas deciding that any means to their political end is justified, especially ignoring the views of the minority, because the poor suckers have been brainwashed by the filthy capitalist swine media...

[Clinton Huxley]

Civil disobedience doesn't necessarily mean violence but it does mean breaking the law. And breaking the law can sometimes be the only way to be rid of an unjust law.

[JimC]

Civil disobedience doesn't necessarily mean violence but it does mean breaking the law. And breaking the law can sometimes be the only way to be rid of an unjust law.

Agreed, but is does not require violence, except in extreme cases...

And I get to decide what's extreme, because I'm a sensible chap...

[sandinista]

If extra-legal violence is used by a state to oppress people

? The state makes the laws. "Extra-legal violence? Of course every state uses violence or the threat of violence to oppress people.

and in addition there is no possibility of the people electing a different set of rulers

Such as in north america. Extremist on both accounts.

but I imply minority groups with radical agendas deciding that any means to their political end is justified

such as the small percentage of the extremely wealthy. That's what is happening right now.

because the poor suckers have been brainwashed by the filthy capitalist swine media...

Are you suggesting that people do not fall victim to propaganda? Are you also suggesting that the media is not owned by wealthy capitalist interests. If so, you're wrong on both accounts. If not, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Civil disobedience doesn't necessarily mean violence but it does mean breaking the law. And breaking the law can sometimes be the only way to be rid of an unjust law.

Of course. Not to say that violence should always be counted out.

Agreed, but is does not require violence, except in extreme cases...

The state itself requires violence. An extremist state, neo liberal states included.

[Coito ergo sum]

If extra-legal violence is used by a state to oppress people

? The state makes the laws. "Extra-legal violence? Of course every state uses violence or the threat of violence to oppress people.

Excellent point, which is why liberal democracy is among the better forms of government to have, because it purports to limit the role of that government, and distribute power broadly to try to minimize the violence and oppression.

The government is best that governs least.

You and George Washington are in full agreement on that point: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington

"The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election... They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican govenrment may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided."
Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 9, 1787)

"[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others."
James Madison 1787 - Federalist No. 10

"No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison 1788 - Federalist No. 48

and in addition there is no possibility of the people electing a different set of rulers

Such as in north america. Extremist on both accounts.

Whether you call it extremist or not, it is less "extremist" than most other governments on Earth, particularly those in Cuba (50 year military dictatorship), Venezuela (budding dictatorship), Russia (morphing back into Soviet style government), China (Communist dictatorship), North Korea (well, obviously), Iran (theocracy), Saudi Arabia (same), Jordan (dictatorship), Syria (dictatorship), Egypt (becoming a theocracy)...all throughout the world..

If one looks around the world, to live in the extremest regimes of North America is a pleasure. One may think it's less "extreme" in some European countries, and maybe it is. All that would mean is that North America is not the least extremist country on the planet. Oh, well. It's still far better on average to live here than in 180 or so other countries, or more.

but I imply minority groups with radical agendas deciding that any means to their political end is justified

such as the small percentage of the extremely wealthy. That's what is happening right now.

There has been that. However, again, compared to most of the world -- compared to the vast majority of other countries - the US isn't all that bad in that regard. Try south America and such. Wealth inequality in, say Brazil, is vastly worse there than here. Or we could be like Cuba, where there are a tiny number of wealthy, and everyone else is pretty equal in their poverty, living on state issued rice and beans rationed periodically.

[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.

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

Indeed, but he would be wrong in doing so because it's not about the "logic" involved, it's about the absolute evil of socialism. Hitler could have used the same "logic" in justifying his extermination of the Jews, and in point of fact he did so, but he was wrong because there is no moral equivalency between exterminating Jews and defending against Nazi tyranny. The same argument applies to Marxism. There is no moral equivalence between Marxism and individual rights and democracy. Marxism is evil and harmful in every case, and therefore the use of force to defend against it and remove it as a threat to individual liberty and world peace is perfectly moral and justifiable. Marxism itself is never moral and never justifiable under any circumstances.

No moral equivalence, so your argument is a fallacious one.

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

What part of "you either support and defend individual liberty and peace or you support Marxist tyranny and despotism" don't you understand?

Pick a side, because there is no middle ground. Marxism must be extirpated from the planet, no matter what the cost.

[sandinista]

Excellent point, which is why liberal democracy is among the better forms of government to have, because it purports to limit the role of that government, and distribute power broadly to try to minimize the violence and oppression.

Except that your wrong. It does not "distribute power broadly", I don't even know how you came up with that one. Power is in the hands of the very wealthy, that's it, governments are run by corporations, power is concentrated in very few hands and violence and oppression are not minimized.

The government is best that governs least.

Unless, of course, that government simply "governs least" because they've been bought and sold by corporate powers.

Whether you call it extremist or not, it is less "extremist" than most other governments on Earth

Really? BS.

The US, for example, has more people in prison than anywhere on the planet, NOT more per capita, More period

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world ... wanted=all

If that's not extreme I don't know what is. Not only that, look at military spending, another extreme. To say the US is not extremists is either naive or willfully ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

particularly those in Cuba (50 year military dictatorship), Venezuela (budding dictatorship), Russia (morphing back into Soviet style government), China (Communist dictatorship), North Korea (well, obviously), Iran (theocracy), Saudi Arabia (same), Jordan (dictatorship), Syria (dictatorship), Egypt (becoming a theocracy)...all throughout the world..

So, what does "dictatorship" have to do with anything? The US is a dictatorship as well, you have one of two figureheads that run the country, that is somehow much more free and wonderful than one person. "Of, fuck those "dictatorships", countries run by one person, we have TWO...yes they both have the same policies, but, hey, it looks great...or not." FFS.

If one looks around the world, to live in the extremest regimes of North America is a pleasure.

Depends who you are and what you're economic status is. The rich in Saudi Arabia are as happy as the rich in the US.

All that would mean is that North America is not the least extremist country on the planet.

No, it's one of the most.

[Seth]

Excellent point, which is why liberal democracy is among the better forms of government to have, because it purports to limit the role of that government, and distribute power broadly to try to minimize the violence and oppression.

Except that your wrong. It does not "distribute power broadly", I don't even know how you came up with that one. Power is in the hands of the very wealthy, that's it, governments are run by corporations, power is concentrated in very few hands and violence and oppression are not minimized.

Which statement is, of course, bullshit Marxist propaganda with not an ounce of truth in it.

The US, for example, has more people in prison than anywhere on the planet, NOT more per capita, More period

So what? That just means we're willing to punish criminals instead of just letting them go on victimizing people because it's too expensive to imprison them.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison.

Er, that would be because China doesn't imprison its serious criminals, it takes them out back of the courthouse and puts a bullet in their head once the verdict is in. Only minor criminals go to jail in China. Everybody else goes to the graveyard.

If that's not extreme I don't know what is. Not only that, look at military spending, another extreme. To say the US is not extremists is either naive or willfully ignorant.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

particularly those in Cuba (50 year military dictatorship), Venezuela (budding dictatorship), Russia (morphing back into Soviet style government), China (Communist dictatorship), North Korea (well, obviously), Iran (theocracy), Saudi Arabia (same), Jordan (dictatorship), Syria (dictatorship), Egypt (becoming a theocracy)...all throughout the world..

So, what does "dictatorship" have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with everything.

The US is a dictatorship as well,

Horseshit Marxist propaganda, and not very good propaganda at that.

[sandinista]

Thanks, you're backup is always appreciated.

[Coito ergo sum]

Excellent point, which is why liberal democracy is among the better forms of government to have, because it purports to limit the role of that government, and distribute power broadly to try to minimize the violence and oppression.

Except that your wrong. It does not "distribute power broadly", I don't even know how you came up with that one. Power is in the hands of the very wealthy, that's it, governments are run by corporations, power is concentrated in very few hands and violence and oppression are not minimized.

Clearly, violence and oppression is minimized as compared to other existing forms of government -- compare western Europe and north America to places like Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, and other shithole dictatorships that nominally call themselves socialist.

No government is going to be perfect, but certainly the concentrated power of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, China, the new Russia, is far more centralized, by nature and definition, than federated republic with representatives elected and power constitutionally limited.

The government is best that governs least.

Unless, of course, that government simply "governs least" because they've been bought and sold by corporate powers.

If the government is governing less, then it doesn't have as many opportunities to oppress. I don't have to do what a corporation tells me to do, that's the difference.

Whether you call it extremist or not, it is less "extremist" than most other governments on Earth

Really? BS.

The US, for example, has more people in prison than anywhere on the planet, NOT more per capita, More period

That alone tells us nothing. To suggest that the US is more "extremist" than Cuba, Russia or China? Ludicrous. I mean. That's just patently absurd...

I know...I know ... "the corporations, man... they're like...rulin' everything, man...." - "here, smoke this...you'll understand after you smoke this..."

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world ... wanted=all

If that's not extreme I don't know what is. Not only that, look at military spending, another extreme. To say the US is not extremists is either naive or willfully ignorant.

Why don't you look at China's oppression of civil liberties, no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, more forced abortions than any other country, prison camps, sweat shops, mercury mines, you name it. Extreme -- it's communist dictatorship.

particularly those in Cuba (50 year military dictatorship), Venezuela (budding dictatorship), Russia (morphing back into Soviet style government), China (Communist dictatorship), North Korea (well, obviously), Iran (theocracy), Saudi Arabia (same), Jordan (dictatorship), Syria (dictatorship), Egypt (becoming a theocracy)...all throughout the world..

So, what does "dictatorship" have to do with anything?

A dictatorship is far more "extreme" than a representative republic.

The US is a dictatorship as well, you have one of two figureheads that run the country, that is somehow much more free and wonderful than one person. "Of, fuck those "dictatorships", countries run by one person, we have TWO...yes they both have the same policies, but, hey, it looks great...or not." FFS.

Who are the dictators?

That's ludicrous -- you don't even know the difference between Cuba and the US?

If one looks around the world, to live in the extremest regimes of North America is a pleasure.

Depends who you are and what you're economic status is. The rich in Saudi Arabia are as happy as the rich in the US.

I like it when people are happy. The "poor" in the US are far better off than the poor in Saudi Arabia.

All that would mean is that North America is not the least extremist country on the planet.

No, it's one of the most.

Only if you think Fidel Castro is a moderate.

[sandinista]

I know...I know ... "the corporations, man... they're like...rulin' everything, man...." - "here, smoke this...you'll understand after you smoke this..."

I like this, the same every time with you. You have no argument, no base for anything you're saying, no intelligent replies, so you resort to insults and cut downs. Thanks, you and seth (coitoseth) do a fine job making my points for me with these kinds of ridiculous "counters" which amount to nothing but juvenile remarks. Continue on, if you ever feel like having a discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks I'll be happy to discuss, until then

[Coito ergo sum]

I know...I know ... "the corporations, man... they're like...rulin' everything, man...." - "here, smoke this...you'll understand after you smoke this..."

I like this, the same every time with you. You have no argument, no base for anything you're saying, no intelligent replies, so you resort to insults and cut downs. Thanks, you and seth (coitoseth) do a fine job making my points for me with these kinds of ridiculous "counters" which amount to nothing but juvenile remarks. Continue on, if you ever feel like having a discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks I'll be happy to discuss, until then

I have no argument?

Your sole argument is: the corporations run everything and brainwash everyone with propaganda and the US is just a dictatorship.

That's it. No proof. You just declare it. It's like your still a freshman in college who thinks it's cool to be all hippie.

[sandinista]

It's like your still a freshman in college who thinks it's cool to be all hippie.

...and again, that's all you have. Keep digging that hole, you'll fit in it soon. Maybe you can make enough room for seth too so you have someone to talk to about freedom.

[Seth]

It's like your still a freshman in college who thinks it's cool to be all hippie.

College? Freshman? Hardly. I'd say his arguments are the quality of a high-school dropout who's been smoking too much Marxamphetamine.

In all this time he's never once had the balls to actually even attempt to rationally debate and defend Marxism, and every time his dogma is whipped, he himself turns to classic Alinsky smears and insults.

College my ass.

Then again, given the egregious and pernicious Marxist infiltration of our colleges, and the massive amounts of Marxist propaganda they shovel down the throats of credulous freshmen in the farce they call "higher education" where "critical thinking" is defined as "mouthing appropriate Marxist platitudes on command, like Pavlov's dogs," I suppose it is possible.

Which is another good reason to extirpate Marxism, because it's infecting and eating the brains of our youth and it's turning them into mindless sloganeering Marxist zombies who are incapable of rational thought or behavior.

[Warren Dew]

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world ... wanted=all

If that's not extreme I don't know what is. Not only that, look at military spending, another extreme. To say the US is not extremists is either naive or willfully ignorant.

Interesting point.