Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **Guest** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:34 pm

Comrades, I've recently put up a new website and email list called ANAPAC, a project intended to provoke thought and discussion on the idea of anarchy and pacifism and their common ideals. Check out the site at www.gpjo.org/anarcho-pacifism.htm . Peace, m ( A ) t t

by **Guest** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:59 pm

I've thought about it already. I've discussed it at length. I can't restrain myself though - <big>READ THE FAQ!</big>

by **Guest** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:53 pm

Yeah, I've read the FAQ. And it recognizes that there is a minority of pacifists in the anarchist movement.

by **lucky_charms** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:28 pm

You must enter a message when posting.

by **Guest** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 6:13 am

In a few words...anarcho-iterations that's the deal a lovely quote: As Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is "justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence" and that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently, his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55, pp. 53-54] that's in the almighty FAQ i concur

by **lucky_charms** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:50 pm

You must enter a message when posting.

by **Guest** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 7:22 am

If there are masters and slaves there is agressive oppression - you been paying the slightest attention to police riots? look at a fractal maybe? or use a dictionary. I aint MW online. plur

by **lucky_charms** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:29 pm

You must enter a message when posting.

by **Guest** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:06 am

[color=green]what is this jibber-jabber??! [color=purple]one more time nice and slow 1)The ruling class - Master 2)Cops/Prison Guards - Master's attack dogs and tools of oppression 3)The working class - The slaves [color=green]our disenfranchisement is far from the suffering and terror that slaves experienced during slavery! [color=purple]depends on who you are. you say "our" - who is that? [color=green]so you're basically saying, prisonners violating prison guards is okay? slaves attacking masters was just self-defense? [color=purple]Dunno about 'violating', but yep...anyone who'd imprison and/or enslave another is fair game, i'd say. [color=green]Revenge isn't self-defense. [color=purple]Agreed. By the same token, Self-defense isn't revenge. [color=green]So we can't have any non-violent movements in anarchism?? [color=purple]Non-violent? IMO, no. Not in these times. I'm not foaming at the mouth. I don't have more weapons that I have pockets to hold them. Personally I'd only use violence as a last resort, but I refuse to rule violence out as an option. [color=green]I really don't want to hear your bullshit answer 'cause no one is going to violate me unless I seriously break the law or go down a dark alley :-)

[color=purple]A law-abiding anarchist. What novelty. [color=green]I'm not a slave!!! [color=purple]Are you 'employed'? You pay taxes? Everyone does - even people who don't have an inimate relationship with the IRS or equivalent. Sales tax. Your labor, represented by cash money under capitalism, taken by the state. Forceably. If you don't pay the tax, you don't get the goods. [color=green]I'm not saying we created the wage system. I'm saying, submitting to it is our own fault [color=purple]How is that? It's pervasive. Don't like the wage slave job at Wal-Mart? Hey...how bout trying out a wage-slave job at McDonalds. Or maybe get some job training and move up to a unionized wages-slave position. Currently, there are few alternatives to wage-slavery, and as long as that remains the situation, wage-slavery continues to exist. [color=green]Why would you violate a boss?! A boss?! Don't they have to work for their money, too??! [color=purple]Well, they should, but they don't have to as long as they can get a wage-slave to do it for them. I'm not talking middle-management here. The boss class. The ruling class. The oligarchy. Though doubtless many class warriors would disagree, there's a difference. [color=green]if you were MW Online, then you wouldn't have it, anyway, motherfucker, 'cause they didn't have your word, "anarcho-iterations." [color=purple]A fractal is a mathematical equation that when iterated, takes on form and color. An iteration is a repetition of such a mathematical equation. I flunked algebra, so bear with me. Fractal images are fractals that have been iterated numerous times, often with modifying equations thrown in for flavor. I make them, somewhat randomly. [color=green] Why don't you just stop making up words, motherfucker, [color=purple]No. Anarcho-communism Anarcho-syndicalism Anarcho-primitivism Anarcho-individualism Anarcho-collectivism Anarcho-mutualism Anarcho-pacifism Anarcho-socialism! Anarcho-capitalism! Anarcho-fundamentalism? ALL of them are iterations of "Anarcho-" As for the motherfucker bit - if I were incestously minded...i'd be more interested in one of my brothers. [color=green]"READ THE FAQ!" Oh yeah, big nuts, that will just take five hours. [color=purple]My bad. How about "read the part of the FAQ that pertains to pacifism and anarchism. It's in section A, all sections being individually selectable." And here's a link even. http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA3.html#seca34 [color=green]plur???[color=green] [color=purple]exactly

by **Din** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:47 am

[color=green] Anarcho-communism Anarcho-syndicalism Anarcho-primitivism Anarcho-individualism Anarcho-collectivism Anarcho-mutualism Anarcho-pacifism Anarcho-socialism! Anarcho-capitalism! Anarcho-fundamentalism? Three of those do not exist and you know it. [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [color=green]My bad. How about "read the part of the FAQ that pertains to pacifism and anarchism. It's in section A, all sections being individually selectable." And here's a link even. http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA3.html#seca34 Pity about that section. They didn't even bother to explain why Gandhi was not an anarchist.

by **lucky_charms** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:22 am

You must enter a message when posting.

by **Yhcrana** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:30 pm

I think that pacifism is really flawed. I am no fan of violence, but I think that pacifists ignore the fact that there are situations where people cannot AFFORD to be "nonviolent". Rather than being strictly pacifist, I believe that it is important to adapt our tactics to every situation. If being peaceful is the best approach, then let's be peaceful. However, in situations where being "violent" makes more sense, then we should not shy away from it.

by **Din** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 1:28 am

[color=green]I think that pacifists ignore the fact that there are situations where people cannot AFFORD to be "nonviolent". I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. - Mohandas K. Gandhi. I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully. - Mohandas K. Gandhi. Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right. - Mohandas K. Gandhi. I myself am an anarchist ... - Mohandas K. Gandhi.

by **888** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:57 pm

[bleu] I myself am an anarchist ... - Mohandas K. Gandhi. [/bleu] Yeah, but just saying that doesn't mean he was an anarchist. In what way was he an anarchist? He was a head of state!

by **Guest** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:41 am

[i][color=green][bleu] I myself am an anarchist ... - Mohandas K. Gandhi. [/bleu][i] [color=purple]if only this were a french forum

Anarchist Discussion Forums

ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Re: ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Re: ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Re: what's covered in the FAQs, anyway??

Re: what's covered in the FAQs, anyway??

Re: what's covered in the FAQs, anyway??

Re: what's covered in the FAQs, anyway??

Re: ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Re: ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Re: ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Re: ANAPAC: Anarcho-Pacifism

Who is online